Mercy Killing

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND PROFESSIONAL ETHICS MERCY KILLING BY BRIAN NIKIL QUADRAS(1RV11ME036) G K SHIVAKUMAR(1RV11ME044) 3A MECH Introduction Mercy Killing is a general term used for the medical term „EUTHANASIA'. The term Euthanasia Comes from an ancient Greek word meaning 'a good death'. The word has come to mean the bringing about of an easy and gentle death. When euthanasia is performed following the request of the person who dies. When euthanasia is performed following the request of the person who dies, it is voluntary euthanasia. Ending the life of an able patient without their permission or against their will is involuntary euthanasia. This is murder. Even though euthanasia is a common topic for general discussion, its real nature and significance are complex and, not surprisingly, it is therefore often misunderstood. Euthanasia is the intentional taking of the life of another person, by act or omission, for compassionate motives. It is voluntary when a person has requested it for him/herself non-voluntary when there has been no request or consent, and involuntary when it is carried out despite an expressed wish to the contrary. Assisted suicide occurs when one person supplies the means of self-killing to another, with the intention that they will be used for that purpose. Euthanasia is a form of homicide — even if legalized, it would be legalized homicide. Intention is central to the concept. There is no euthanasia unless the death is intentionally caused by what was done or not done. Thus, some medical actions that are often labeled passive euthanasia are no form of euthanasia, since the intention to take life is lacking. These acts include not commencing treatment that would not provide a benefit to the patient, withdrawing treatment that has been shown to be ineffective, too burdensome or is unwanted, and the giving of high doses of pain-killers that may endanger life, when they have been shown to be necessary. All those are part of good medical practice, endorsed by law, when they are properly carried out. Though it is not always easy to make the distinction between the intended consequences of an act and those that are foreseen but not intended, and some people may then think there is no distinction, it is nonetheless real, and important to make it. It provides the ethical justification for some of the necessary actions of doctors in certain complex situations near the end of life, for example, when appropriately removing medical treatment that has been shown to be useless. When continuing medical treatment would be futile, that is without any known predictable benefit, it is both legal and ethical to withhold it or remove it with the intention of ceasing the needless prolongation of inevitable dying, even though death may be foreseen as a consequence. (In passing, it can be mentioned that terminally-ill patients are rarely attached to life-support systems, such as ventilators. The issue of the removal of life-support is separate from euthanasia). It is sometimes said that intention cannot be tested, but there is a simple test to apply Mercy Killing 2 | P a g e to clarify the matter of intent when dealing with euthanasia. Ask the question „what would then be done if the patient did not die?' If treatment was withdrawn and the patient didn't die, he or she would then receive all necessary care until eventual natural death. If a lethal injection didn't work, further doses would be given until the patient died. One risks death and the other seek it. Some object to the word „killing' as applied to euthanasia as „emotive', but it is simply descriptive of what is being proposed, that is, „to take the life of'. Nobody becomes emotionally upset when they read that „Mr. So and So was killed yesterday when hit by a speeding car'. The term „mercy killing' is accurate and inoffensive. On the other hand, while euthanasia is technically the crime of murder, this word may be offensive because its motive is usually not malicious, but compassionate. Thus, Euthanasia is the process of painlessly helping a terminally ill person to die. Known also as assisted suicide or mercy killing. Generally, euthanasia is performed by lethal injection, using the same drugs as those on death row are executed. Hippocrates, the father of modern medicine, stated in 400 B.C., "I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel". Today, doctors are still bound by this oath. Like abortion, the debate about assisted suicide is a heated one. Many argue that quality of life is an issue, while those on the other side believe life must be preserved at all costs. The arguments from both sides are of both moral and legal ramifications. Proponents of assisted suicide believe that state has no right to interfere with a person's right to die. Opponents voice the opposite opinion; that no one but God has the authority to determine when a person is to die. The Hemlock Society is very vocal in their belief that euthanasia should be allowed, especially if the patient has conveyed those wishes. Very few stand on the middle of the road on this issue. Most religions and medical professionals are opposed to euthanasia. The topic was brought to the forefront of public opinion with the trial of Doctor Jack Kevorkian in the late 1990s. He was sentenced to 10-25 years in prison for the murder of Thomas Youk after giving him a lethal injection. Dr. Jack Kevorkian, nicknamed Dr. Death, is the most controversial physician in America. He is also considered by some to be one of the most important doctors of the 20th Century. To many he is seen as a hero for his work in crusading for the legalization of euthanasia, and to others he is nothing more than a common murderer. He was stripped of his medical license in 1990 after he began publicly helping terminally ill people to die. The doctor was taken to court on many occasions, but was not convicted until April 13, 1999. To date doctor Kevorkian has helped at least 130 people die. I think that even though he has broken anti-euthanasia laws many times his example should be looked upon with respect. In reality he is doing nothing more than help desperate suffering people die with dignity. According to him “Each person in this world is worthy of respect, and the basic rights and freedoms to control his or her own destiny. If people have the right to decide how they live their lives, then they should also have the right to decide how their life is going to end.” He believed that terminally ill patients should have the right to choose euthanasia as a possible option for Mercy Killing 3 | P a g e ending their lives. One of the main reasons that he put forward was the simple fact of pain and suffering. It is a fact that at least 5% of terminal pain cannot be controlled, even with the best of medical care. There are also many other symptoms that a patient can get that are not always possible to keep under control, such as sickness and breathlessness. Another main issue is quality of life. A patient should not be forced to stay alive during their last days of weeks of their life in a way which, to them, is undignified. Keeping the person alive only causes more unneeded pain and suffering for the patient. Lastly the practice of euthanasia has been going on for quite a while, and in most cases doctors that are caught are almost never prosecuted. The problem is that in these cases doctors are assisting their patients to die behind closed doors. If euthanasia were to become legalized it would be openly discussed and most importantly regulated, so the rights of these patients can be protected. Several foreign countries including the Netherlands and Belgium allow euthanasia to be performed on patients if certain conditions, such as chronic pain associated with an incurable illness, are met. Objections to Mercy Killing The arguments against Mercy killing or Euthanasia are normally classified on the basis of religious objections and other objections. In the following paragraphs, some of the objections to mercy killing have been enumerated. Objections Based On Religion Many of the arguments made against voluntary euthanasia come from a religious basis. There are many different religions who oppose this practice. The strongest is the Roman Catholic Church. Buddhist and Islamic faiths also oppose the euthanasia. Even though many of these religions do not support euthanasia, there are many ordinary believers and priests who do support this practice. Three Basic Arguments 1. The Sanctity of Life. Mercy Killing 4 | P a g e One of the common arguments against euthanasia from a religious basis is the 'sanctity of life.' Many religions teach that life is simply a gift from God, and that only He can decide when it is to end. This means that any deliberate killing of an innocent person is wrong. So many believe that the concept of voluntary euthanasia breaks that law, even though it is one's own personal choice. This gives people the message that they do not have the right to make their own choices regarding their life. 2. Intentional Killing is Forbidden. The argument that intentional killing is forbidden is taken from the 6th Commandment, which states 'though shalt not kill.' Churches translate this Commandment to include voluntary euthanasia as intentional killing. However, it is important to remember that this Commandment has never been absolute in its definition.

Load more