Zakyah Basri’s essay on mercy killing uses a rhetorical question as a title: Euthanasia: Which M is It? Mercy or Murder? While this title treats the subject a bit simplistically, it reflects the essence of the debate on mercy killing: whether it is an act of mercy or a simple murder. Proponents of mercy killing list numerous advantages of this practice for the person who undergoes mercy killing, his/her nearest and dearest, and the society as a whole. These benefits include allowing the patient end his/her sufferings, freeing relatives from psychological and financial burdens, releasing hospital beds and medical resources, and reducing the spread of diseases. While these arguments seem rational and well founded on the principles of social Darwinism and social science (Dowbiggin 7), they are inherently flawed both in terms of the issues of morality and culture, and, from a legal perspective. Therefore, logical disproval of these arguments will provide sufficient ground for stating: mercy killing cannot be justified by any means.
To begin with, let us examine the very meaning and formulation of the term ‘mercy killing’. While mercy killing is a buzzword in the world of contemporary media, its meaning often remains blurred. Whereas “mercy” suggests compassion and concern, “killing” suggests taking away somebody’s life, which has little to do with mercy. Mercy killing is often used as a general term for euthanasia, “the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures, a person or animal suffering from an incurable, especially a painful, disease or condition” (“Euthanasia”).
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Mercy Killing".
Today, however, the term mercy killing has acquired an additional connotation: ending the life of another person without his or her request. In essence, a corresponding term to mercy killing, thus, may be involuntary euthanasia (killing which takes place despite the fact that the person has not explicitly asked for aid in dying). To compare, voluntary euthanasia refers to killing a person in response to her/his request, or as Margaret Sommerville, distinguishes between the two types of euthanasia: “euthanasia with or without an informed consent” (Somerville 27).
Based on these findings, the use of the word ‘mercy’ in ‘mercy killing’ seems a way too forced, especially given the contradictory nature of both words and the ambiguity of the word ‘mercy’. In addition, mercy killing should not be used as a medical or any other term because it is already biased. ‘Mercy’ evokes positive emotions and the associations of kindness and compassion. Therefore, it kind of justifies the second word – ‘killing’ – without giving sufficient argumentative basis for this.
The fact that ‘mercy killing’ is a deliberately biased word is supported by a range of facts in the media. For example, the newspapers Chicago Sun-Times and Daily Southtown covered the case of shooting of a 74 year-old woman by her husband while in hospital bed as a ‘mercy killing’. Before any legal investigation actually took place, the media had already labeled the murder case as a killing out of compassion. Yet, there were obviously more relevant terms to be used: domestic violence and murder (“A New Zealand Resource for Life Related Issues”). Therefore, the term ‘mercy killing’ is biased and inappropriate to refer to the practice of killing of terminally ill or old patients, since it does not have any clear boundaries nor does it have any justifiable foundations.
Having established the irrelevancy of the term ‘mercy killing’, let us focus on the benefits that proponents ascribe to euthanasia and mercy killing. Two key arguments are relieving a suffering person of pain and freeing relatives of a suffering person from the emotional burden of seeing how their close people suffer. While there are cases when people ask their doctors or family members to end their sufferings, many cases of euthanasia and mercy killings are done without any voluntary consent from the suffering party. What is more, sometimes the patients do not even need to be terminally ill. For example, in the Dutch legislation, before the adoption of a narrow definition of the term euthanasia, prior understanding of euthanasia “did not necessarily limit euthanasia to terminally ill people” (Somerville 27). Recently, the broadening of the term euthanasia has caused the situation to go out of hand. For instance, Rosenblatt in his article “The Quality of Mercy Killing” provides a list of murders when relatives of ill patients killed them allegedly out of mercy: Roswell Gilbert, aged 76, killed his wife Emily, aged 73, who had osteoporosis and Alzheimer’s disease, because he did not want to allow her to live as a “suffering animal”; in Fort Lauderdale, a man aged 79 shot his wife aged 62 in a hospital; in San Antonio, a man aged 69 shot his brother aged 72 while he stayed in a nursing home. Importantly, Rosenblatt observes, “the matter of mercy killing is getting rough” while the underlying motives still remain unclear. Was it really mercy or kindness? Or was it simply Gilbert’s lack of desire to take care of his spouse, accept her the way she was in her old years, and witness her sufferings? It seems Gilbert shot Emily more of love to himself. Thus, mercy killing cannot be justified in any case because it is based on an inherently flawed and subjective perception of mercy and may conceal real motives. Besides, it risks growing into a social practice of cleansing the society from old, disabled, and ill individuals given the fact it is advantageous for the society as a whole – pretty the same way it was in Nazi camps!
Finally, mercy killing cannot be justified purely for moral reasons. While there are a number of options to replace mercy killing (including simple administration of quality painkillers), the society ignores them. As Peck shows in his article “Living is the Mystery”, the problem is inflated (Peck, “Living is the Mystery”). It could have been resolved by a better means: patients who are terminally ill should be assisted in understanding what life is and exploring the meaning of life rather than helped to avoid facing life by murdering themselves. Besides, euthanasia is not justifiable because it reflects only one direction – a secular one. No religious tradition (Christian, for example) justifies euthanasia. Essentially, the philosophy of mercy killing denies the very existence of soul and focuses on a simplistic solution of dealing with life’s hardships: finding a way out. Hence, it should not be legally supported due to its limitations and secular basis.
Overall, mercy killing can never be justified for a set of reasons. Firstly, no killing is merciful because taking somebody’s life is already an act of murder. Secondly, mercy killing is growing to become a social practice of cleansing the society from ill, old, and invalid people. Thirdly, mercy killing is a forced problem which has a few other solutions that will benefit the person and the society, in particular through philosophical and religious guidance in understanding of the meaning of life and death. Fourthly, mercy killing is a secular-based practice and it does not consider the cultural and religious traditions, so it is one-sided and unreliable in any case.
- A New Zealand Resource for Life Related Issues. “Mercy Killing”. 2011. Web. 22 October
2012. - Dowbiggin, Ian. A Merciful End : The Euthanasia Movement in Modern America. Oxford
University Press, 2002. Print. - Peck, Scott. “Living is the Mystery”. N.d. Web. 22 October 2013.
- Rosenblatt, Roger. “The Quality of Mercy Killing”. N.d. Web. 22 October 2013.
- Somerville, Margaret. Death Talk: The Case Against Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted
Suicide. McGill-Queen’s Press, 2001. Print.
