Whether to allow euthanasia or not has been a point of debate to many people for a very long time. Euthanasia can be viewed as mercy killing when the chronically ill person seems not to have hope for recovering, and this can end their suffering. On the other hand, euthanasia can be viewed as illegal since no one has a right to take away a life that God has given, except God alone. Based on the two different opinions, it is debatable whether to allow euthanasia or not. In this paper, reasons for allowing euthanasia or not are discussed.

For chronically ill persons or domestic animals death can be permitted as an act of mercy, to terminate their pain (Cavan, 2000).If the individual has suffered for a very long time after being given all the medications required without improvement, it is only kind if the suffering can be brought to an end. The caretaker could find that the individual is suffering for nothing and the pain inflicted into them is unbearable even to the caretaker, prompting them to end their life peacefully. Under such conditions, euthanasia could be recommended.

In other circumstances the individuals could be ill for a very long time and their expected death not forthcoming. This ends up drowning the family financially when paying the medical bills, at the same time fussing over the clinicians that they are not giving enough care to their kin. The family leads a miserable life and clinicians left with a hard decision to make (Biggs, 2001). In this case the family can agree to allow termination of the life of their loved one, especially if the were in a life support.

According to Biggs(2001), other people can demand to maintain their dignity by dying peacefully instead of the trauma associated with prolonged illness. Everyone is entitled to dignity and intrinsic value and most people hold self-determination as a way of maintaining their individual autonomy. The patients could feel that they are becoming a burden to their family and even get into depression, making their illness to be severe. They can give an accord for their treatment to be withdrawn, allowing them to die slowly, or some medications to be given that can facilitate their death so that they can forget about their worries.

Mercy killing can also reduce inconveniences to relatives such as time spent caring for their patient in expense to carrying out other economic activities. Spending so much time out of work without improvement of the patient can make them lose their jobs; hence, it becomes hard for them to provide for the family. This can pull back the economy as a whole.

On the contrary, most people view mercy killing as illegal, based on Christianity and law. According to Christianity view, ability to give or take away life only belongs to God, so life is sacred and no one should take it into their hands (Tulloch, 2005). It is termed as committing murder when the Bible clearly says that it should not be. The law also states that every individual has a right to life, no one should terminate it. However, we can not rule out the fact that a chronically ill patient needs this kind of mercy and it would only be good to end their suffering.

In conclusion, mercy killing should be encouraged as it has many benefits to society than the vices. It reduces patients’ prolonged suffering, depression and other trauma associated with the chronic suffering. It also reduces the suffering that the family faces during the period of the patient’s sickness.

References

Cavan S. (2000). Euthanasia: The debate over the right to die. New York, N.Y: The Rosen Publishing Group, Inc.

Biggs H. (2001). Euthanasia,death with dignity and the law. Oxford Ox: Hart Publishing.

Tulloch G. (2005). Euthanasia, choice and death. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Ltd.