So What Should We Do: a Controversy About Mercy Killing
Mercy killing, also known as euthanasia, is a controversial topic that has been debated for many years. While some argue that it is a compassionate act that can relieve suffering, others argue that it goes against the value of human life and can be open to abuse. Mercy killing is the topic for this argumentative essay in which I will argue that it should be legal in certain circumstances.
Firstly, mercy killing can be a humane and compassionate act that can relieve the suffering of individuals who are terminally ill or in a state of unrelenting pain. In such cases, individuals may have no hope of recovery or improvement in their condition, and may only be experiencing a slow and painful decline. For these individuals, mercy killing can be a way to end their suffering and provide them with a dignified death.
Secondly, it can be argued that individuals have the right to make decisions about their own lives, including the decision to end their own life if they are suffering from a terminal illness or chronic pain. Individuals who are experiencing unbearable suffering may wish to end their lives on their own terms, rather than waiting for the natural course of their illness to take its toll.
Opponents of mercy killing argue that it goes against the value of human life, which is a fundamental principle of society. They believe that all life is precious and that ending it prematurely, even in cases of terminal illness or chronic pain, goes against this principle. They argue that allowing mercy killing could lead to a slippery slope, where the lives of vulnerable individuals, such as the elderly or disabled, are devalued and seen as disposable.
There are also concerns that legalizing mercy killing could lead to pressure on individuals to end their lives prematurely. This could come from family members, caregivers, or medical professionals who may feel that the burden of care is too great, or who may want to free up resources for other patients. This pressure could be particularly acute for vulnerable individuals, such as those who are elderly or have disabilities, who may feel that they are a burden on their loved ones or on society as a whole.
In addition, there are concerns about the possibility of medical professionals abusing the system. There are fears that doctors and nurses could hasten the deaths of patients who have not requested mercy killing, or that they could pressure patients to request it. This could be particularly problematic if medical professionals have a financial incentive to encourage patients to end their lives, or if they have personal biases or beliefs that influence their decisions.
In response to these concerns, it can be argued that the legalization of mercy killing should be carefully regulated, with strict guidelines and safeguards in place to prevent abuse. For example, mercy killing could be limited to individuals who are terminally ill or in a state of unrelenting pain, and who have made a clear and informed decision to end their own lives. The process could be overseen by an independent panel of medical and legal experts, who would ensure that all necessary safeguards are in place to protect the individual and prevent abuse.
In conclusion, while there are valid concerns about the legalization of mercy killing, it can be argued that it should be legal in certain circumstances, such as for individuals who are terminally ill or in a state of unrelenting pain. It is important to ensure that any legislation relating to mercy killing is carefully regulated and overseen, with strict safeguards in place to protect individuals and prevent abuse. Ultimately, individuals should have the right to make decisions about their own lives, including the decision to end their own suffering.
