EUTHANASIA (MERCY KILLING): A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF U.K.

AND INDIAN POSITION

Quoted by Markandey Katju, J. in Aruna ramchandraShanbaug v. Union Of India[1]
Marte hain aarzoo mein marne ki Maut aati hai par nahin aati
-- Mirza Ghalib
INTRODUCTION:
Life is the most precious creation of God in this world. No matter how advanced science has
become, the beauty of nature and creation of life and cause of death remains an unfolded
mystery. Life cannot be created so taking away of life made legally punishable. But there
are circumstances where even law is in a dilemma over the issues of life and death. And one
such case is that of mercy killing or euthanasia.
The increased importance given to individual autonomy in the twentieth and twentyfirst Centuries has been a major reason for lateral thinking in the direction of
legalizing Euthanasia.[2] Euthanasia societies are emerging rapidly in all parts of the globe
to seek public Opinion and to pressurize the legislature to pass legislation in this respect.
[3]The euthanasia debate has now become increasingly significant because of the
developments in Netherlands, Canada, Oregon, Belgium ,Columbia as well as in
India[4] where euthanasia has been allowed in the recent period of time.
The term euthanasia comes from the Greek words "eu"-meaning good and "thanatos"meaning death, which combined means well-death or "dying well". Hippocrates mentions
euthanasia in the Hippocratic Oath, which was written between 400 and 300 BC the original
Oath states: To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which
may cause his death.[5] Despite this, the ancient Greeks and Romans generally did not
believe that life needed to be preserved at any cost and were, in consequence, tolerant of
suicide in cases where no relief could be offered to the dying or, in the case of
the Stoics and Epicureans, where a person no longer cared for his life. Historically, as the
oft-quoted definition in Blacks Law Dictionary suggests[6], death was: The cessation
of life; the ceasing to exist;defined by physicians as a total stoppage of
the circulation of the blood, and a cessation of the animal and vital functions
consequent thereon, such as respiration, pulsation, etc.
The English Common Law from the 14th century until the middle of the last century made
suicide a criminal act in England and Wales. Assisting others to kill themselves remains
illegal in that jurisdiction. However, in the 16th century, Thomas More, considered a saint by
Roman Catholics, described a utopian community and envisaged such a community as one
that would facilitate the death of those whose lives had become burdensome as a result of
"torturing and lingering pain".
Since the 19th Century, Euthanasia has sparked intermittent debates and activism in North
America and Europe. According to medical historian Ezekiel Emanuel, it was the
availability of anesthesia that ushered in the modern era of euthanasia. In 1828, the first
known anti-euthanasia law in the United States was passed in the state of New York, with

many other localities and states following suit over a period of several years. After the Civil
War, voluntary euthanasia was promoted by advocates, including some doctors. Support
peaked around the turn of the century in the US and then grew again in the 1930s.
In an article in the Bulletin of the History of Medicine, Brown University historian Jacob M.
Appel documented extensive political debate over legislation to legalize physician-assisted
suicide in both Iowa and Ohio in 1906. Appel indicates social activist Anna S. Hall was the
driving force behind this movement. According to historian Ian Dowbiggin, leading public
figures, including Clarence Darrow and Jack London, advocated for the legalization of
euthanasia.
Euthanasia societies were formed in England in 1935 and in the USA in 1938 to promote
euthanasia. Although euthanasia legislation did not pass in the USA or England, in 1937,
doctor-assisted euthanasia was declared legal in Switzerland as long as the doctor ending
the life had nothing to gain. During this same era, US courts tackled cases involving
critically ill people who requested physician assistance in dying as well as mercy killings,
such as by parents of their severely disabled children.
Euthanasia brings about many ethical issues regarding a patients death. Some physicians
say euthanasia is a rational choice for competent patients who wish to die to escape
unbearable suffering. Others feel that aiding in the patients death goes against a physicians
duty to preserve life.
Euthanasia is one of the most perplexing issues which the courts and legislatures all over
the world are facing today. The euthanasia is of two types: active and passive. Active
euthanasia entails the use of lethal substances or forces to kill a person e.g. a lethal
injection given to a person with terminal cancer who is in terrible agony. Passive euthanasia
entails withholding of medical treatment for continuance of life, e.g. withholding of
antibiotics where without giving it a patient is likely to die, or removing the heart lung
machine, from a patient in coma. The general legal position all over the world seems to be
that while active euthanasia is illegal unless there is legislation permitting it, passive
Euthanasia is legal even without legislation provided certain conditions and safeguards are
maintained.
A further categorization of euthanasia is between voluntary euthanasia and non
voluntaryeuthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia is where the Consent is taken from the
patient, whereas non voluntary euthanasia is where the consent is unavailable e.g. when
the patient is in coma, or is Otherwise unable to give consent. Active Euthanasia is
a crime all over the world except where permitted by legislation. In India active
euthanasia is illegal and a crime under section 302 or at least section 304
IPC. Physician assisted suicide is a crime under section 306 IPC (abetment to
suicide). Active euthanasia is taking specific steps to cause the patient's death, such as
injecting the patient with some lethal substance, e.g. sodium Pentothal which causes a
person deep sleeps in a few Seconds, and the person instantaneously and painlessly dies in
this deep sleep. A distinction is sometimes drawn between this petition on the euthanasia

and physician assisted dying, the difference being in who administers the lethal Medication.
In euthanasia, a physician or third party administers it, while in physician assisted suicide, it
is the patient himself who does it, though on the advice of the doctor. In many
Countries/States the latter is legal while the difference between "active" and "passive"
euthanasia is that in active euthanasia, something is done to end the patient's life while in
passive euthanasia, something is not done that would have preserved the patient's life. An
important idea behind this distinction is that in "passive euthanasia" the doctors are not
actively killing anyone; they are simply not saving him. Thus, proponents of euthanasia say
that while we can debate whether active euthanasia should be legal, there can be no debate
about passive euthanasia: You cannot prosecute someone for failing to save a life.
[7]
LEGISLATION IN SOME COUNTRIES RELATING TO EUTHANASIA OR PHYSICIAN
ASSISTED DEATH
In the present case we are dealing with a case related to passive euthanasia, it would be of
some interest to note the legislations in certain countries permitting active euthanasia.
These are given below.
Netherlands:
Euthanasia in the Netherlands is regulated by the "Termination of Life on Request and
Assisted Suicide (Review Procedures) Act 2002.[8] It states that euthanasia and physicianassisted suicide are not punishable if the attending physician acts in accordance with the
criteria of due care. These criteria concern the patient's request, the patient's suffering
(unbearable and hopeless), the information provided to the patient, the presence of
reasonable alternatives, consultation of another physician and the applied method of ending
life. To demonstrate their compliance, the Act requires physicians to report euthanasia to a
review committee. The legal debate concerning euthanasia in the Netherlands took off with
the "Postma case" in 1973, concerning a physician who had facilitated the death of her
mother following repeated explicit requests for euthanasia. While the physician was
convicted, the court's judgment set out criteria when a doctor would not be required to keep
a patient alive contrary to his will. This set of criteria was formalized in the course of a
number of court cases during the 1980s. Termination of Life on Request and
Assisted Suicide (Review Procedures) Act took effect on April 1, 2002. It legalizes
euthanasia and physician assisted suicide in very specific cases, under very specific
circumstances. The law was proposed byEls Borst, the minister of Health. The procedures
codified in the law had been a convention of the Dutch medical community for over twenty
years. In U.K., Spain, Austria, Italy, Germany, France, etc. none of these countries is
euthanasia or physician assisted death legal. In January 2011 the French Senate defeated
by a 170-142 vote a bill seeking to legalize euthanasia. In England, in May 2006 a bill
allowing physician assisted suicide, was blocked, and never became law.
United States of America:

Active Euthanasia is illegal in all states in the states of Oregon, Washington and Montana
the difference between euthanasia and physician assisted suicide lies in who administers the
lethal medication. Passive euthanasia is usually defined as withdrawing medical treatment
with a deliberate intention of causing the patients death. For example, if a patient requires
kidney dialysis to survive, not giving dialysis although the machine is available, is passive
euthanasia. Similarly, if a patient is in coma or on a heart lung machine, withdrawing of the
machine will ordinarily result in passive euthanasia. Similarly not giving life saving
medicines like antibiotics in certain situations may result in passive euthanasia. Denying
food to a person in coma or PVS may also amount to passive euthanasia. Euthanasia can be
both voluntary or non voluntary. In voluntary passive euthanasia a person who is capable of
deciding for himself decides that he would prefer to die (which may be for various reasons
e.g., that he is in great pain or that the money being spent on his treatment should instead
be given to his family who are in greater need, etc.), and for this purpose he consciously
and of his own free will refuses to take life saving medicines. In India, if a person
consciously and voluntarily refuses to take life saving medical treatment it is not a crime.
Whether not taking food consciously and voluntarily with the aim of ending ones life is a
crime under section 309 IPC (attempt to commit suicide) is a question which need not be
decided in this case. Non voluntary passive euthanasia implies that the person is not in a
position to decide for himself e.g., if he is in coma or PVS. In the present case where we
have to consider non voluntary passive euthanasia i.e. whether to allow a person to die who
is not in a position to give his/her consent. There is a plethora of case law on the subject of
the Courts all over the world relating to both active and passive euthanasia. It is not
necessary to refer in detail to all the decisions of the Courts in the world on the subject of
euthanasia or physically assisted dead.
U.K. Approach towards Euthanasia:
An important distinction in UK law exists between active euthanasia and passive euthanasia.
Since the Bland ruling of 1993, 'assisted suicides', which involve 'omissions' that are
principally the removal of life-saving care are not illegal. However, actively taking action to
end another's life is illegal, even with consent. In law, euthanasia has no special legal
position in the UK. Instances described as euthanasia are treated as murder or
manslaughter. However, the Suicide Act 1961 makes a specific offence of 'criminal liability
for complicity in another's suicide', while declaring suicide itself to be legal. In practice,
however, the prosecution of euthanasia in the UK is distinct from other cases of unlawful
killing - the consent of the Attorney General to prosecute is an explicit requirement of the
Act, and sentencing is influenced by the often desperate and harrowing circumstances of
individual cases.
The law has been reviewed since 1961, but has not been substantially changed, despite
regular attempts by backbenchers in Parliament. In England in May 2006 a bill allowing
physician assisted suicide, was blocked, and never became law.
Since the Human Rights Act 1998, however, campaigners have claimed that the denial of a
right to release oneself from unbearable pain amounts to inhuman and degrading treatment

(Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights), is a violation of privacy and family
life (Article 8), amounts to discrimination given the legality of suicide itself, and that an
individual's inherent dignity and 'right to die' is violated by the current legislation.
In the Airedale case[9] decided by the House of Lords in the U.K., all the Judges of the
House of Lords in the Airedale case (supra) were agreed that Anthony Bland should be
allowed to die. Airedale (1993) decided by the House of Lords has been followed in a
number of cases in U.K., and the law is now fairly well settled that in the case of
incompetent patients, if the doctors act on the basis of informed medical opinion, and
withdraw the artificial life support system if it is in the patients best interest, the said act
cannot be regarded as a crime. The parens patriae (father of the country) jurisdiction was
the jurisdiction of the Crown, which, as stated in Airedale, could be traced to the 13th
Century. This principle laid down that as the Sovereign it was the duty of the King to protect
the person and property of those who were unable to protect themselves. The Court, as a
wing of the State, has inherited the parens patriae jurisdiction which formerly belonged to
the King.
INDIAN POSITION
In India abetment of suicide (Section 306 Indian Penal Code) and attempt to suicide
(Section 309 of Indian Penal Code) are both criminal offences. This is in contrast to many
countries such as USA where attempt to suicide is not a crime. The Constitution Bench of
the Indian Supreme Court in Gian Kaur vs. State of Punjab, 1996(2) SCC 648 held that
both euthanasia and assisted suicide are not lawful in India. That decision overruled the
earlier two Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in P. Rathinam vs. Union
of India, 1994(3) SCC 394. The Court held that the right to life under Article 21 of the
Constitution does not include the right to die (vide para 33). In Gian Kaurs case (supra)
the Supreme Court approved of the decision of the House of Lords in Airedales case
(supra), and observed that euthanasia could be made lawful only by legislation the opinion
that although Section 309 Indian Penal Code (attempt to commit suicide) has been held to
be constitutionally valid in Gian Kaurs case (supra), the time has come when it should be
deleted by Parliament as it has become Anachronistic. A person attempts suicide in a
depression, and hence he needs help, rather than punishment. We therefore recommend to
Parliament to consider the feasibility of deleting Section 309 from the Indian Penal Code.
In Gian Kaurs case although the Supreme Court has quoted with approval the view of the
House of Lords in Airedales case it has not clarified who can decide whether life support
should be discontinued in the case of an incompetent person e.g. a person in coma or PVS.
This vexed question has been arising often in India because there are a large number of
cases where persons go into coma (due to an accident or some other reason) or for some
other reason are unable to give consent, and then the question arises as to who should give
consent for withdrawal of life support. This is an extremely important question in India
because of the unfortunate low level of ethical standards to which our society has
descended, its raw and widespread commercialization, and the rampant corruption, and
hence, the Court has to be very cautious that unscrupulous persons who wish to inherit the
property of someone may not get him eliminated by some crooked method.

WITHDRAWAL OF LIFE SUPPORT OF A PATIENT IN PERMANENT VEGETATIVE

STATE (PVS)
There is no statutory provision in our country as to the legal procedure for withdrawing life
support to a person in PVS or who is otherwise incompetent to take a decision in this
connection [10]i) A decision has to be taken to discontinue life support either by the parents
or the spouse or other close relatives, or in the absence of any of them, such a decision can
be taken even by a person or a body of persons acting as a next friend. It can also be taken
by the doctors attending the patient. However, the decision should be taken bona fide in the
best interest of the patient.
UNDER WHICH PROVISION OF THE LAW CAN THE COURT GRANT APPROVAL FOR
WITHDRAWING LIFE SUPPORT TO AN INCOMPETENT PERSON:
It is the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution which can grant approval for
withdrawal of life support to such an incompetent person. Article 226(1) of the Constitution
states: Notwithstanding anything in article every High Court shall have power, throughout
the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or
authority,including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions,
orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo
warranto andcertiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by
Part III and for any other purpose.
In Vikram Deo Singh Tomar vs. State of Bihar[11] where it was observed by this
Court :We live in an age when this Court has demonstrated, while interpreting Article 21 of
the Constitution, that every person is entitled to a quality of life consistent with his human
personality. The right to live with human dignity is the fundamental right of every Indian
citizen.
In P. Rathinam vs. Union of India and another[12] in which a two-Judge bench of this
Court quoted with approval a passage from an article by Dr. M. Indira and Dr. Alka Dhal in
which it was mentioned : Life is not mere living but living in health. Health is not the
absence of illness but a glowing vitality. The decision in Rathinams case (supra)
was, however, overruled by a Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Gian Kaur vs.
State of Punjab[13].The 14th report of the Law Commission of India on euthanasia has
not been accepted by the Government of India. In Aruna Ramchandra case,the Attorneygeneral of India said that the Indian society is emotional and care-oriented. We do not send
our parents to old age homes, as it happens in the West. He stated that there was a great
danger in permitting euthanasia that the relatives of a person may conspire with doctors
and get him killed to inherit his property. He further submitted that tomorrow there may be
a cure to a medical state perceived as incurable today. In general, in common law, it is the
right of every individual to have them control of his own person free from all restraints or
interferences of others. Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to
determine what shall be done with his own body. In the case of medical treatment, for

example, a surgeon who performs an operation without the patients consent commits
assault or battery. It follows as a corollary that the patient possesses the right not to
consent i.e. to refuse treatment. (In the United States this right is reinforced by a
Constitutional right of privacy). This is known as the principle of self-determination or
informed consent. The principle of self-determination applies when a patient of sound mind
requires that life support should be discontinued. The same principle applies where a
patients consent has been expressed at an earlier date before he became unconscious or
otherwise incapable of communicating it as by a living will or by giving written authority to
doctors in anticipation of his incompetent situation.
Absent any indication from a patient who is incompetent the test which is adopted by Courts
is what is in the best interest of the patient whose life is artificially prolonged by such
life support. This is not a question whether it is in the best interest of the patient that he
should die. The question is whether it is in the best interest of the patient that his life should
be prolonged by the continuance of the life support treatment. This opinion must be formed
by a responsible and competent body of medical persons in charge of the patient. The
withdrawal of life support by the doctors is in law considered as an omission and not a
positive step to terminate the life. The latter would be euthanasia, a criminal offence under
the present law in UK, USA and India. In such a situation, generally the wishes of the
patients immediate family will be given due weight, though their views cannot be
determinative of the carrying on of treatment as they cannot dictate to responsible and
competent doctors what is in the best interest of the patient. However, experience shows
that in most cases the opinions of the doctors and the immediate relatives coincide. The
Court has held that there is no right to die (suicide) under Article 21 of the Constitution and
attempt to suicide is a crime vide Section 309 IPC, the Court has held that the right to life
includes the right to live with human dignity, and in the case of a dying person who is ill or
in a permanent vegetative state he may be permitted to terminate it by a premature
extinction of his life in these circumstances and it is not a crime vide Gian Kaurs case
(supra). The decision to withdraw the life support is taken in the best interests of the patient
by a body of medical persons. It is not the function of the Court to evaluate the situation
and form an opinion on its own. In England for historical reasons the parens patriae
jurisdiction over adult mentally incompetent persons was abolished by statute and the Court
has no power now to give its consent. In this situation, the Court only gives a declaration
that the proposed omission by doctors is not unlawful. In U.K., the Mental Capacity Act,
2005[14] now makes provision relating to persons who lack capacity and to determine what
is in their best interests and the power to make declaration by a special Court of Protection
as to the lawfulness of any act done in relation to a patient.
CONCLUDING REMARKS:
The ethics of euthanasia, being value debate, still remains as a debatable issue. Just like
other value debates, it also seems to be never ending. Since the law follows ethics in most
of cases, the dilemma in the field of euthanasia can also be seen in the laws of different
countries. The Netherlands legislation in this regard is one of the most comprehensive
legislation for two obvious reasons. On the one hand, it lays down the essential criteria to

be complied with before conducting euthanasia and on the other hand, it provides checks
and balances by establishing Review Committees. Therefore euthanasia is not conferred as
a matter of right to the patient, but has been made as an exception to the liability of the
doctor in the Dutch law.
Indian judiciary, on the other hand, has always been in confusing state of mind on the issue
of euthanasia. In Maruti Shripati Dubal and P. Rathinam, the court held that suicide is
permissible and euthanasia, in whatever circumstances, would amount to homicide, and
therefore not permissible. The Supreme Court, in Gian Kaur, recognized the legality of the
passive euthanasia, but could not conclusively decide on the issue of passive euthanasia.
More importantly, focus of all these cases were on suicide and abatement to suicide, and not
on euthanasia.
At last while legislative reforms are awaited, in this regard in India, one needs to look in to
the impact of the defenses available to the doctors under IPC. Sections 76, 81 and 88 of IPC
are sufficient enough to provide defense to the doctors conducting euthanasia in good faith.
While there exists no doubt on the permissibility of passive euthanasia, the active
euthanasia, if conducted to avoid greater harm, would be entitled to legal protection under
section 81 while the Suicide Act 1961 makes a specific offence of 'criminal liability for
complicity in another's suicide', while declaring suicide itself to be legal. In practice,
however, the prosecution of euthanasia in the UK is distinct from other cases of unlawful
killing - the consent of the Attorney General to prosecute is an explicit requirement of the
Act, and sentencing is influenced by the often desperate and harrowing circumstances of
individual cases. In England in May 2006 a bill allowing physician assisted suicide, was
blocked, and never became law. TheIndian position also remains unclear in the absence of
legislation. But in Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union[15] of India the Apex court of
India reject a plea for its use on a woman in a vegetative state but issue guidelines allowing
for the use of 'passive' euthanasia for terminally ill patients through the withholding of
treatment. In India the rampant of cases is pending before the government who is seeking
for mercy killingviz., muscular dystrophy, brain disorder, etc.[16]So, the government
should make a legislation to redress the grievances of mercy-killing seekers.

[1] AIR 2011 SC 1290

2 Though the medical intervention in the process of dying started in the nineteenth century, the
efforts to hasten
death to relieve pain started in the early twentieth century. Anne Kornhauser, The Modern Art of
Dying: A
History of Euthanasia in the United States, 30 POLITICAL AND LEGAL ANTHROPOLOGY
REVIEW
(2007) (Book Review).
3 The first euthanasia society was established in London in 1935. Subsequently it spread to
America (1938) and
other parts of the globe.

[4] Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India AIR 2011 SC1290.

[5] "History of Euthanasia". www.euthanasia.com.

[6] Blacks law dictionary, 4th Ed.
[7] Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v.Union of India AIR2011 SC 1290

[8] Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide (Review Procedures) Act 2001.
[9] (Airedale NHS Trust v. Bland (1993) All E.R. 82) (H.L.)
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]

Aruna Ramchandra shanbaug v.Union of India AIR 2011 SC 1290

1988 (Supp) SCC 734 (vide para 2)
(1994) 3 SCC 394
1996) 2 SCC 648.
The Mental Capacity Act, 2005.
AIR 2011 SC 1290

[16] http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/bihar-parents-seek-mercy-killing-for-two-sons-90358&cp
Main source: Aruna Ramchandra shanbaug v. Union of India AIR 2011 SC 1290

Sociological analysis of mercy killing

Search all our free law essa Search

These essays have been written by students for you to use to help you with your
studies. If you need your own custom law essay then we can help....
Get a quote for your own law essay...
Share & Download
Print
Download
Email

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 lifesupport is separate from euthanasia). It is sometimes said that intention cannot be
tested, but there is a simple test to apply 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 seeks 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 that 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 antieuthanasia 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 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 can not be controlled, even with the best of medial 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.
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. Churches allow for intentional
killing in wars, self defense, and in cases of capital punishment.

3. The Value of Human Suffering.

In Christianity they teach that human suffering is part of God's plan for human beings.
They believe that suffering has spiritual significance, and that it leads to growth. They
also think that is part of the process of redemption. So in short they reject the concept of
voluntary euthanasia on the basis that the extreme suffering that a patient is enduring is
all part of God's will.

Other Objections.
1. Euthanasia would not only be for people who are "terminally ill."
There are two problems here -- the definition of "terminal" and the changes that have
already taken place to extend euthanasia to those who aren't "terminally ill." There are

many definitions for the word "terminal." For example, when he spoke to the National
Press Club in 1992, Jack Kevorkian said that a terminal illness was "any disease that
curtails life even for a day." The co-founder of the Hemlock Society often refers to
"terminal old age." Some laws define "terminal" condition as one from which death will
occur in a "relatively short time." Others state that "terminal" means that death is
expected within six months or less. Even where a specific life expectancy (like six
months) is referred to, medical experts acknowledge that it is virtually impossible to
predict the life expectancy of a particular patient. Some people diagnosed as terminally
ill don't die for years, if at all, from the diagnosed condition. Increasingly, however,
euthanasia activists have dropped references to terminal illness, replacing them with
such phrases as "hopelessly ill," "desperately ill," "incurably ill," "hopeless condition,"
and "meaningless life."
An article in the journal, Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, described assisted
suicide guidelines for those with a hopeless condition. "Hopeless condition" was defined
to include terminal illness, severe physical or psychological pain, physical or mental
debilitation or deterioration, or a quality of life that is no longer acceptable to the
individual. That means just about anybody who has a suicidal impulse .

2. Euthanasia can become a means of health care cost containment

Physician-assisted suicide, if it became widespread, could become a profit-enhancing
tool for big HMOs. Drugs used in assisted suicide cost only about $40, but that it could
take $40,000 to treat a patient properly so that they don't want the "choice" of assisted
suicide. Perhaps one of the most important developments in recent years is the
increasing emphasis placed on health care providers to contain costs. In such a climate,
euthanasia certainly could become a means of cost containment.
In India, thousands of people have no medical insurance; studies have shown that the
poor and minorities generally are not given access to available pain control, and
managed-care facilities are offering physicians cash bonuses if they don't provide care
for patients. With greater and greater emphasis being placed on managed care, many
doctors are at financial risk when they provide treatment for their patients. Legalized
euthanasia raises the potential for a profoundly dangerous situation in which doctors
could find themselves far better off financially if a seriously ill or disabled person
"chooses" to die rather than receive long-term care. Savings to the government may
also become a consideration. This could take place if governments cut back on paying
for treatment and care and replace them with the "treatment" of death. For example,
immediately after the passage of Measure 16, Oregon's law permitting assisted suicide,
Jean Thorne, the state's Medicaid Director, announced that physician-assisted suicide
would be paid for as "comfort care" under the Oregon Health Plan which provides
medical coverage for about 345,000 poor Oregonians. Within eighteen months of
Measure 16's passage, the State of Oregon announced plans to cut back on health care
coverage for poor state residents. In Canada, hospital stays are being shortened while,
at the same time, funds have not been made available for home care for the sick and

elderly. Registered nurses are being replaced with less expensive practical nurses.
Patients are forced to endure long waits for many types of needed surgery.

3. Euthanasia will only be voluntary,

they say Emotional and psychological pressures could become overpowering for
depressed or dependent people. If the choice of euthanasia is considered as good as a
decision to receive care, many people will feel guilty for not choosing death. Financial
considerations, added to the concern about "being a burden," could serve as powerful
forces that would lead a person to "choose" euthanasia or assisted suicide.
People for euthanasia say that voluntary euthanasia will not lead to involuntary
euthanasia. They look at things as simply black and white. In real life there would be
millions of situations each year where cases would not fall clearly into either category.
Here are two:
Example 1: an elderly person in a nursing home, who can barely understand a breakfast
menu, is asked to sign a form consenting to be killed. Is this voluntary or involuntary?
Will they be protected by the law? How? Right now the overall prohibition on killing
stands in the way. Once one signature can sign away a person's life, what can be as
strong a protection as the current absolute prohibition on direct killing? Answer: nothing.
Example 2: a woman is suffering from depression and asks to be helped to commit
suicide. One doctor sets up a practice to "help" such people. She and anyone who
wants to die knows he will approve any such request. He does thousands a year for
$200 each. How does the law protect people from him? Does it specify that a doctor can
only approve 50 requests a year? 100? 150? If you don't think there are such doctors,
just look at recent stories of doctors and nurses who are charged with murder for killing
dozens or hundreds of patients.
Legalized euthanasia would most likely progress to the stage where people, at a certain
point, would be expected to volunteer to be killed. Think about this: What if your
veterinarian said that your ill dog would be better of "put out of her misery" by being "put
to sleep" and you refused to consent. What would the vet and his assistants think?
What would your friends think? Ten years from now, if a doctor told you your mother's
"quality of life" was not worth living for and asked you, as the closest family member, to
approve a "quick, painless ending of her life" and you refused how would doctors,
nurses and others, conditioned to accept euthanasia as normal and right, treat you and
your mother. Or, what if the approval was sought from your mother, who was depressed
by her illness? Would she have the strength to refuse what everyone in the nursing
home "expected" from seriously ill elderly people?
The movement from voluntary to involuntary euthanasia would be like the movement of
abortion from "only for the life or health of the mother" as was proclaimed by advocates
30 years ago to today's "abortion on demand even if the baby is half born". Euthanasia
people state that abortion is something people choose - it is not forced on them and that

voluntary euthanasia will not be forced on them either. They are missing the main point it is not an issue of force - it is an issue of the way laws against an action can be
broadened and expanded once something is declared legal. You don't need to be
against abortion to appreciate the way the laws on abortion have changed and to see
how it could well happen the same way with euthanasia/assisted suicide as soon as the
door is opened to make it legal.

4. Euthanasia is a rejection of the importance and value of human life.

People who support euthanasia often say that it is already considered permissible to
take human life under some circumstances such as self defense - but they miss the
point that when one kills for self defense they are saving innocent life - either their own
or someone else's. With euthanasia no one's life is being saved - life is only taken.
History has taught us the dangers of euthanasia and that is why there are only two
countries in the world today where it is legal. That is why almost all societies - even nonreligious ones - for thousands of years have made euthanasia a crime. It is remarkable
that euthanasia advocates today think they know better than the billions of people
throughout history who have outlawed euthanasia - what makes the 50 year old
euthanasia supporters in 2005 so wise that they think they can discard the accumulated
wisdom of almost all societies of all time and open the door to the killing of innocent
people? Have things changed? If they have, they are changes that should logically
reduce the call for euthanasia - pain control medicines and procedure are far better than
they have ever been any time in history.

Facts And Ethics Behind Mercy Killing

Euthanasia is defined by The American Heritage Dictionary as "the action of killing an
individual for reasons considered to be merciful" (469). Here, killing is described as the
physical action where one individual actively kills another. Euthanasia is tolerated in the
medical field under certain circumstances when a patient is suffering profoundly and
death is inevitable.
The word "euthanasia" comes from the Greek eu, "good", and thanatos, "death,"
literally, "good death"; however, the word "euthanasia" is much more difficult to define.
Each person may define euthanasia differently. Who is to decide whether a death is
good or not? Is any form of death good? All of these questions can be answered
differently by each person. It is generally taken today to mean that act which a health
care professional carries out to help his/her patient achieve a good death. Suicide, selfdeliverance, auto-euthanasia, aid-in-dying, assisted suicide -- call it what you like -- can
be justified by the average supporter of the so-called "right to die movement" for the
following reasons:
The first reason is that an advanced terminal illness is causing unbearable suffering to
the individual. This suffering is the most common reason to seek an early end. Second,
a grave physical handicap exists that is so restricting that the individual cannot, even

after due care, counseling, and re-training, tolerate such a limited existence. This
handicap is a fairly rare reason for suicide; most impaired people cope remarkably well
with their affliction, but there are some who would, at a certain point, rather die. We say
that there is a second form of suicide; justifiable suicide, that is a rational and planned
self-deliverance from a painful and hopeless disease which will shortly end in death.
The word "suicide" does not sit well in this context but we are stuck with it. Suicide is the
taking of one's own life. Why does the term euthanasia even exist? Is euthanasia not
suicide? A differentiation must be made between the two. Suicide is condoned by
society as being unacceptable but euthanasia is viewed as moral and acceptable in
most instances. The term "self-deliverance" is difficult to understand because the news
media is in love with the words "doctor-assisted suicide". This is because the news
media is dissecting the notion of whether or not doctors, who are supposed to preserve
life, should partake in euthanasia. The media is failing to look at the actual issue of
euthanasia, but instead, they are looking at the decision of whether or not doctors
should assist in euthanasia. Also, we have to face the fact that the law calls all forms of
self-destruction suicide. There are ethical guidelines for euthanasia. If the following
guidelines are met, then euthanasia is considered acceptable.
The person must be a mature adult. This is essential. The exact age will depend on the
individual but the person should not be a minor who would come under quite different
laws. Secondly, the person must have clearly made a considered decision. An individual
has the ability now to indicate this with a living will (which applies only to disconnection
of life supports) and can also, in today's more open and tolerant society, freely discuss
the option of euthanasia with health-care professionals, family, lawyers, etc. The
euthanasia must not be carried out at the first knowledge of a life-threatening illness,
and reasonable medical help must have been sought to cure or at least slow down the
terminal disease. We may not believe in giving up life the minute a person is informed
that he or she has a terminal illness. Life is precious, you only live once, and it is worth
a fight. It is when the fight is clearly hopeless and the agony, physical and mental, is
unbearable that a final exit is an option. The treating physician must have been
informed, asked to be involved, and his or her response been taken into account. The
physician's response will vary depending on the circumstances, of course, but they
should advise their patients that a rational suicide is not a crime. It is best to inform the
doctor and hear his or her response.For example, the patient might be mistaken.
Perhaps the diagnosis has been misheard or misunderstood. Patients raising this
subject were met with a discreet silence or meaningless remarks in the past but in
today's more accepting climate most physicians will discuss potential end of life actions.
The person must have a Will disposing of his or her worldly effects and money.
This shows evidence of a tidy mind, an orderly life, and forethought, all things which are
important to an acceptance of rational suicide. The person must have made plans to die
that do not involve others in criminal liability or leave them with guilty feelings.
Assistance in suicide is a crime in most places, although the laws are gradually
changing, and very few cases ever come before the courts. The only well-known
instance of a lawsuit concerning this is the doctor-assisted suicide of Dr. Kevorkian. The

person must leave a note saying exactly why he or she is taking their life. This
statement in writing removes the chance of misunderstandings or blame. It also
demonstrates that the departing person is taking full responsibility for the action. These
are all guidelines for allowing euthanasia to take place. By this, It is meant that the
doctor is involved in the patient's decision and actively performs the euthanasia.
Passive euthanasia would show a lack of interest on the doctor's part. Simply allowing a
patient to die does not require a doctor's presence.
Passive euthanasia should not even exist. Euthanasia is defined as "the action of
killing..." James Rachels states in his "Active and Passive Euthanasia" that "The
important difference between active and passive euthanasia is that in passive
euthanasia, the doctor does not do anything to bring about the patient's death. The
doctor does nothing and the patient dies of whatever ills already afflict him. In active
euthanasia, however, the doctor does something to bring about the patient's death: he
actively kills him"
Is allowing a patient to die considered to be an action? Rachels states "...the process of
being allowed to die can be relatively slow and painful, whereas being given a lethal
injection is relatively quick and painless" (1020). Disconnecting respiratory devices is
not an acceptable method of euthanasia. It causes the patient to starve for oxygen and
gasp for it, but when he/she cannot breathe, the body is starved of oxygen and
suffocates. This is not merciful by any means. Rachels also states, "One reason why so
many people think that there is an important moral difference between active and
passive euthanasia is that they think killing someone is morally worse than letting
someone die" The idea that a patient utilizes a medical device and has grown
dependent on it for life is a grim one indeed; however, relieving a patient who relies on
this machine for his/her life by simply cutting it off is not acceptable.
Leon Kass states in his "Why Doctor's Must Not Kill," "Ceasing medical intervention,
allowing nature to take its course, differs fundamentally from mercy killing. For one
thing, death does not necessarily follow the discontinuance of treatment" (1034).
Euthanasia is the physical action of putting someone to a painless death who is
suffering tremendously. The passive nature of allowing someone to die is not
euthanasia. This is not a physical action taken by a doctor to ease a patient's suffering
and agony.
The doctor should decide whether the ailment is curable and if it is not, he/she should
decide whether the patient will live productively for months or even years to come. If the
ailment is not immediately fatal, will it cause pain and suffering for the rest of the
patient's life? How old is the patient? Will he/she live much longer anyway? All these
factors should come into play when deciding whether a patient should be euthanized;
however, the doctor's answers to these questions may differ from those of the patient
and his/her family. It is up to the patient's doctor to decide whether the patient's ailment
is indeed curable. The patient should be presented with the facts. The doctor should tell
the patient exactly how it is and not project the false hope that the patient may recover.

With this information, the patient can make an informed decision and feel that it is the
best one.
Sidney Hook states in his "In Defense of Voluntary Euthanasia" that "Each one should
be permitted to make his own choice - especially when no one else is harmed by it. The
responsibility for the decision, whether deemed wise or foolish, must be with the
chooser" (1028). This is evidenced quite simply by the mere fact that everyone has civil
rights and liberties. No one can decide who should die and who should not. Everyone is
in complete control of his/her own life and; therefore, should be free to decide.
Having considered the arguments in favor of auto-euthanasia, the person should also
contemplate the arguments against it. First, should the person go into a hospice
program instead and receive not only first-class pain management but comfort care and
personal attention? Put simply, hospices make the best of a bad job, and they do so
with great skill and love. The right-to-die movement supports their work, but not
everyone wants a lingering death, not everyone wants that form of care. Today many
terminally ill people take the marvelous benefits of home hospice programs and still
accelerate the end when suffering becomes too much. A few hospice leaders claim that
their care is so perfect that there is absolutely no need for anyone to consider
euthanasia.
While there is no wish to criticize them, they are wrong to claim perfection. Most, but not
all, terminal pain can today be controlled with the sophisticated use of drugs, but the
point these leaders miss is that personal quality of one's live is foremost to some
people. If one's body has been so destroyed by disease that it is not worth living, that is
an intensely individual decision which should not be swayed. In some cases of the final
days in hospice care, when the pain is very serious, the patient is drugged into
unconsciousness. If that way is acceptable to the patient, then so be it, but some people
do not wish their final hours to be in that fashion. There should be no conflict between
hospice and euthanasia, both are valid options in a caring society. Both are appropriate
to different people with differing values.
The other consideration is related to religion: does suffering glorify a person? Is
suffering, as related to Jesus Christ's suffering on the cross, a part of the preparation for
meeting God? Are you merely a steward of your life, which is a gift from God, which only
He may take away. If your answers to these questions are yes, then you should not be
involved in any form of euthanasia. Remember that there are millions of atheists, as well
as people of differing religions, and they all have rights, too. Many Christians who
believe in euthanasia justify it by reasoning that the God whom they worship is loving
and tolerant, and would not wish to see them in agony. They do not see their God as
being so vengeful as refusing them the Kingdom of Heaven if they accelerated the end
of their life to avoid prolonged, unbearable suffering.
A doctor should not be allowed to "play God" and decide who should live and who
should die. In fact, even the patient should not be allowed to, but it is the patient's life
and he/she has to live it. So, it is only logical to allow the patient and no one else, to

decide. Another consideration must be that, by ending one's life before its natural end, is
one is depriving oneself of a valuable period of good life? Is that last period of love and
companionship with family and friends worth hanging on for? Even the most determined
supporters of euthanasia hang on until the last minute; sometimes too long, and lose
control.
They, too, gather with their families and friends to say goodbyes. There are important
reunions and often farewell parties. Euthanasia supporters enjoy life and love living, and
their respect for the sanctity of life is as strong as anybody's. Yet they are willing, if their
dying is distressing to them, to give up a few weeks or a few days at the very end and
leave under their own control. Ultimately, the decision lies with the beholder. It is the
right of a person to make his/her own choice, with some limitations. It is the doctor's
responsibility to provide the patient with an accurate prognosis so that the patient may
make an educated decision.

If Mercy Killing Becomes Legal

Many people support the right of a terminally ill patient to die but what if the right
becomes an obligation? And what of the potential for abuse by impatient heirs? Should
dying patients have the right to order their doctors not to start or continue medical
treatment? Should doctors be protected from prosecution if they shorten a patient's life
expectancy with pain-killing drugs? Most of us would answer yes to both questions. But
does this mean we need a "right to die" law? Or is there more to the issue than first
meets the eye?
Public discussion of the treatment of dying patients often confuses two separate issues.
First, is the right of the terminally ill person to be allowed to die without being subjected
to invasive medical procedures? Second, is the question of whether a dying person
should also have the right to hasten his or her own death, and require the help of
doctors and nurses to do so?

Patients' Rights:
It is often overlooked that patients have the common law right to refuse any medical
treatment. A doctor who treats a patient against his or her express wishes can be
charged with assault. It would be wise to educate people as to their right to refuse
treatment. There is no need to convert this well established legal principle into
legislation. Regardless of the intention of "right to die" or "aid in dying" laws, they could
very easily open the door to active euthanasia.
In the present climate of opinion, it is easy to imagine a doctor giving a lethal dose of
pain-killing drug and then claiming that death was the best way to eliminate physical
suffering. If the doctor could also show that the patient had requested the lethal dosage,
the court might well interpret the law in the doctor's favor. Many do not find the prospect
of legal voluntary active euthanasia in any way alarming. But two things should give us
pause.

First, as a soon-to-be-published Canadian study will show, most health care

professionals who work with the dying endorse the patient's right to refuse medical
treatment, but oppose legalizing active euthanasia. The professionals recognize that if
pain is controlled, as it can be in virtually all cases, very few terminally ill people ask to
be put to death. Second, experience in Holland tells us that voluntary Euthanasia can
quickly become involuntary euthanasia.

Dutch Experience With Euthanasia

Holland is widely regarded as one of the world's most civilized countries. Active
euthanasia is legal there, but for the past decade the government has not prosecuted
doctors who report having assisted their patients to commit suicide.
A recent Dutch government investigation of euthanasia has come up with some
disturbing findings. In 1990, 1,030 Dutch patients were killed WITHOUT THEIR
CONSENT. And of 22,500 deaths due to withdrawal of life support, 63% (14,175
patients) were denied medical treatment WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT. Twelve per-cent
(1,701 patients) were mentally competent but were NOT CONSULTED.
These findings were widely publicized before the November 1991 referendum in
Washington State and contributed to the defeat of the proposition to legalize lethal
injections and assisted suicide. The Dutch experience seems to demonstrate that the
"right to die" can soon turn into an obligation. This concept is dangerous, and you could
find yourself the victim if Euthanasia becomes legal in North America. We have all heard
and some of us have experienced, moving stories of elderly people in great pain, unable
to perform even the most basic human functions, who have asked to die, or have
perhaps brought about their own deaths.
What these stories overlook is that today, in almost all cases, it is possible to kill pain
without killing the patient. When someone's pain is relieved that person usually wants to
go on living. We need to reflect carefully on the consequences of legalizing active
euthanasia. If we enshrine the absolute right to die, will it then become illegal to
intervene to obstruct would-be suicide? Will pharmacists be obligated to sell a lethal
dose of hemlock to anyone who is temporarily depressed?

Potential For Abuse:

We need to think of the potential for abuse if mercy killing becomes legal. What if
someone stands to inherit one million dollars when Aunt Gladys dies? Might the heir not
find it tempting to nudge her in the direction of accepting a lethal injection? Or, if she
didn't get the hint, to make her miserable enough to want it? If voluntary euthanasia is
made legal for "persons of sound mind" there will inevitably be tremendous pressure to
provide it for those who "would request it if they were able to" - the mentally ill or
handicapped, the senile, etc.

Finally, despite genuine compassion for the suffering of dying people, does there not
also lurk in many hearts a less admirable motive? Few people are so tasteless as to link
euthanasia and health care costs in the same breath, but there is a widespread few that
medical care for the elderly costs more than we can afford. These financial pressures
will multiply in the coming years as our population ages.Many elderly people are already
responding to this not-so-subtle message by declaring their willingness to die when their
lives are no longer productive. Their reluctance to be a financial burden on the young is
admirable, but the long term consequences could be brutal.
What will happen to the trust that people still feel toward their doctors if our country
follows Holland? What emotion will elderly or seriously ill patients feel when the nurse
approaches them with a full syringe? How soundly will they sleep in the hospital?

The Alternative To Euthanasia:

The alternative to legalized euthanasia is not extraordinary, futile treatment to
hopelessly dying patients. The alternatives are appropriate medical care - including
1. The withdrawal of treatment upon patient request, or if the treatment serves no
therapeutic purpose; and
1.

Dispensing drugs as necessary to control pain. No doctors, laws, or

organizations oppose ceasing care when the time to die has arrived.

What Is Wrong With Making Mercy Killing Legal?

Many argue that a decision to kill oneself is a private choice about which society has no
right to be concerned. This position assumes that suicide results from competent people
making autonomous, rational decisions to die, and then claims that society has no
business "interfering" with a freely chosen life or death decision that harms no one other
than the suicidal individual. But according to experts who have studied suicide, the
basic assumption is wrong.
A careful 1974 British study, which involved extensive interviews and examination of
medical records, found that 93 percent of those studied who committed suicide were
mentally ill at the time. A similar St. Louis study, published in 1984, found a mental
disorder in 94 percent of those who committed suicide. There is a great body of
psychological evidence that those who attempt suicide are normally ambivalent, that
they usually attempt suicide for reasons other than a settled desire to die, and that they
are predominantly the victims of mental disorder.

Still, Shouldn't It Be The Person's Own Choice?

Almost all of those who attempt suicide do so as a subconscious cry for help, not after a
carefully calculated judgment that death would be better than life. A suicide attempt
powerfully calls attention to one's plight. The humane response is to mobilize psychiatric

and social service resources to address the problems that led the would-be suicide to
such an extremity. Typically, this counseling and assistance is successful. One study of
886 people who were rescued from attempted suicides found that five years later only
3.84 percent had gone on to kill themselves. A Swedish study with a 36-year follow-up
found only 10.9 percent later killed themselves. Paradoxically, the prospects for a happy
life are often greater for those who attempt suicide, but are stopped and helped, than for
those with similar problems who never attempt suicide. In the words of academic
psychiatrist Dr. Erwin Stengel, "The suicidal attempt is a highly effective though
hazardous way of influencing others and its effects are as a rule ... lasting."
In short, suicidal people should be helped with their problems, not helped to die.

But Shouldn't We Distinguish Between Those Who Are Emotionally

Unbalanced And Those Who Are Making A Rational, Competent
Decision?
Psychologist Joseph Richman, writing in the Journal of Suicide and Life-Threatening
Behauior, notes, As a clinical suicidologist, and therapist who has interviewed or
treated over 800 suicidal persons and their families, I have been impressed that those
who are suicidal are more like each other than different, including those who choose
"rational suicide". All suicides, including the "rational," can be an avoidance of or
substitute for dealing with basic life-and-death issues. The suicidal person and
significant others usually do not know the reasons for the decision to commit suicide,
but they give themselves reasons. That is why rational suicide is more often
rationalized, based upon reasons that are unknown, unconscious, and a part of social
and family system dynamics. The proponents of rational suicide are often guilty of
tunnel vision, defined as the absence of perceived alternatives to suicides.

What About Those Who Are Terminally Ill?

Contrary to the assumptions of many in the public, a scientific study of people with
terminal illness published in the American Journal of Psychiatry found that fewer than
one in four expressed a wish to die, and all of those who did had clinically diagnosable
depression. As Richman points out, "Effective psychotherapeutic treatment is possible
with the terminally ill, and only irrational prejudices prevent the greater resort to such
measures.'' And suicidologist Dr. David C. Clark observes that depressive episodes in
the seriously ill "are not less responsive to medication" than depression in others.
Indeed, the suicide rate in persons with terminal illness is only between 2 percent and 4
percent. Compassionate counseling and assistance, such as that provided in many
hospices, together with medical and psychological care, provide a positive alternative to
euthanasia among those who have terminal illness.

What About Those In Uncontrollable Pain?

They are not getting adequate medical care and should be provided up-to-date means
of pain control, not killed. Even Dr. Pieter Admiraal, a leader of the successful

movement to legalize direct killing in the Netherlands, has publicly observed that pain is
never an adequate justification for euthanasia in light of current medical techniques that
can manage pain in virtually all circumstances.
Why, then, are there so many personal stories of people in hospitals and nursing homes
having to cope with unbearable pain? Tragically, pain control techniques that have been
perfected at the frontiers of medicine have not become universally known at the clinical
level. What we need is better training in those techniques for health care personnel -not the legalization of physician-aided death.

What About Those With Severe Disabilities?

What would it say about our attitude as a society were we to tell those who have neither
terminal illness nor a disability, "You say you want to be killed, but what you really need
is counseling and assistance," but, at the same time, we were to tell those with
disabilities, "We understand why you want to be killed, and we'll let a doctor kill you"? It
would certainly not mean that we were respecting the "choice" of the person with the
disability. Instead, we would be discriminatorily denying suicide counseling on the basis
of disability. We'd be saying to the nondisabled person, "We care too much about you to
let you throw your life away," but to the person with the disability, "We agree that life with
a disability is not worth living." True respect for the rights of people with disabilities
would dictate action to remove those obstacles -- not "help" in committing suicide.
Most people with disabilities will tell you that it is not so much their physical or mental
impairment itself that makes their lives difficult as it is the conduct of the nondisabled
majority toward them. Denial of access, discrimination in employment, and an attitude of
aversion or pity instead of respect are what make life intolerable. True respect for the
rights of people with disabilities would dictate action to remove those obstacles -- not
"help" in committing suicide.

Opponents Of Legalizing Assisting Suicide Say It Will Lead To Non

Voluntary Euthanasia.
Absolutely not. As attorney Walter Weber has written in the Journal of Suicide and Life
Threatening Behavior, Under the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
to the U.S Constitution, legislative classifications that restrict constitutional rights are
subject to strict scrutiny and will be struck down unless narrowly tailored to further a
compelling governmental interest. A right to choose death for oneself would also
probably extend to incompetent individuals. A number of lower courts have held that an
incompetent patient does not lose his or her right to consent to termination of lifesupporting care by virtue of his or her incompetency. The "substituted judgment"
doctrine authorizes indeed, requires a substitute decision maker, whether the court or a
designated third party, to decide what the incompetent person would choose, if that
person were competent. Therefore infants, those with mental illness, retarded people,
confused or senile elderly individuals, and other incompetent people would be entitled to
have someone else enforce their right to die.

Thus, if direct killing is legalized on request of a competent person, under court

precedents that have already been set, someone who is not competent could be killed
at the direction of that person's guardian even though the incompetent patient had
never expressed a desire to be killed.

Mercy Killing In Indian Social Context

Having touched upon the controversial aspects of Mercy Killing, let us now move
forward to Indian social context of Mercy Killing.The degenerative muscular dystrophy
patient K Venkatesh, who had sought mercy killing, passed away in Hyderabad on
December 17, 2004. This is the most highlighted case of mercy killing in India. The 25year-old was on life support system in Global Hospital. His eyes were donated after his
death but no other organ could be transplanted as the former chess player had been on
a ventilator for a long period. His mother and sister were by his side when the end
came. His mother had appealed to the Andhra Pradesh high court seeking euthanasia
to allow her son to donate his organs. The court had earlier rejected her appeal but on
Thursday ordered setting up of a committee to reconsider the matter.
A Communist Party of India Member of Parliament, S Sudhakar made a strong case for
legalizing mercy killings. Referring to 25-year old former chess champion, K Venkatesh,
who suffered from muscular dystrophy, S Sudhakar Reddy said the government must
come forward with a comprehensive Euthanasia Act. Euthanasia is the act or practice of
ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition.
Venkatesh and his mother K Sujatha's plea that the former's organs be allowed to be
harvested had been rejected by the Andhra Pradesh high court. The court ruled that the
Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1995, has no provision to allow individuals to
donate organs before they are brain-dead.
This issue made the debate of allowability or otherwise of mercy killing in India, a
controversial issue. I have carried out certain telephonic interviews of randomly selected
citizens of India from 20 major cities of India asking their views about acceptability or
otherwise of mercy killing. This is the major source of review in my study paper and in
the following paragraphs; I have elucidated the various views received from citizens of
cities of India.

Reviews Of Indian General Public

As said earlier, the reviews of Indian General Public has been collected from major
cities of India via telephonic interview conducted where they were asked only their view
regarding acceptability or otherwise of Mercy Killing in Indian social context and were
assured that their identity will not be disclosed in the study paper except that only the
first name and their city will be mentioned in the paper. Following is the list of reviews
and responses sought from citizens of Cities of India as Nikunj Dholakia from Mumbai
said I totally support euthanasia. Sometimes illness is more terrible than the death
itself. In such circumstances the patient should have the right to allow itself to be killed.
Bone cancer is one such eg. in which patient had to undergo terrible pain. secondly

Theoretically Mercy killing is a good step because it relieves both sufferer and the
family of seemingly endless pain. The only hitch could be it can get misused with
dangerous implications. Said Amit Sen from Kolkata. Thirdly India should look out for a
pragmatic solution to this issue; approaches adopted by countries like the Netherlands
can form a good starting point. The idea should not be pushed under the carpet without
a good debate on its pros and cons taking the Indian society and systems into context.
Responded Miss Vamsi from Kanpur but It will be disastrous; people will be murdered
in the name of euthanasia. Was the response of Mr. Saurabh from Ahmadabad and Mr.
N. S. Anand from Chandigrah has to say, Euthanasia must never be legalized because
there is a danger associated with it. There could be several people who might commit
murder and make it appear like mercy killing. Hence legalizing this will provide an
escape route for murderers. next Mr. Haresh Oza, a social thinker from Jamnagar,
Gujarat very seriously put forward his response as he said, I feel it is very painful to see
your loved ones suffer and just drains the family caring for the person emotionally. I
think in India keeping in mind that some people may use it to get rid of people it has to
be brought in under very strict laws but i think it should be allowed for the following
reasons:

Alleviate the suffering of the loved ones concerned.

Let the person go away in dignity and without suffering a lot

Vacates desperately needed medical resources for other cases

Would help with cases like organ donation

I think the government should study how it is implemented in places like Netherlands
and see how it can be better modified to fit our situations. Maybe a combined team of
family, doctors, medical court and an N.G.O could together grant the right to do so in
each case to avoid any foul play. Also the person's own wish to do so should be
available on paper signed just like a will.
In Medical professional area there are also few person came in light who also given
argument in the favor of this, so we should do that what the public want and what is
needed in the jurisprudence savigny also said that should be law what is the opinion if
the spirit of the people with the welfare of the society.

Analysis Of Responses

Out of the general public responses, it is revealed that general public of India at
large wants to accept Mercy Killing after witnessing the case of Late. Venkatesh. It is so
because there were only 3 persons opposing out of every 10 persons. That brings a
ratio of acceptability to 7:3 among general public.

Out of the Medical Professionals' responses, it is apparent that Doctors' Lobby is

still not taking India to be capable of accepting Mercy Killing. Though they did not
oppose Mercy Killing, they in majority opined that India is still not in a position to accept
or legalize Mercy Killing. The acceptability ratio in this case came to be 4:6 among
Medical Practitioners.
So, it can be said that though the general public is ready at large to accept Mercy
Killing, taking the view of the Doctors' lobby, it may still not be viable in Indian Context to
accept and Legalize Mercy Killing.
Thus, the Hypothesis Mercy Killing is, at large, favored by society as a whole as well as
by the lobby of medical practitioners that was suggested in the Proposal holds true to
the extent that Indian Society at large is ready to accept the Mercy Killing but the
assumption that the Medical Practitioners also welcome Mercy Killing, has to be
reassessed as the survey reveals the opposite position.

Conclusion And Openion

The unusual request of a terminally ill person for permission to donate his organs has
triggered an entirely new debate and taken the issue of human organ transplant into an
un-chartered territory. It has raised the demand for extending organ donation beyond
brain deaths to non-heart beat deaths. The case of K Venkatesh, suffering from
Duchene's Muscular Dystrophy, is unique in two ways. Initially, he and his mother
wanted him to be removed from the ventilator on which he has been surviving for more
than a fortnight. It was nothing but a request for Euthanasia or mercy killing. The alibi
they took was that it will enable him to donate his organs - heart, kidneys and liver without the organs getting infected due to his peculiar illness.
However, when it was made clear to them by the doctors and lawyers that Euthanasia
was not legally or medically allowed in India, they knocked on the Andhra Pradesh High
Court's door with an appeal to allow even non-brain death cases to donate their organs.
What they had requested to the court was inclusion of non-heart beat deaths in the
Human Organ Transplant Act.The 1995 Act allows harvesting of human organs only
when the donor is brain dead but his heart and other organs are still functional and his
family voluntarily agrees to donate the organs. Counsel Rajender Prasad made this
point before the High Court Bench pointing out that Acts were updated in many other
fields including information and communication technology to meet the new situations
and problems But, according to me, any such change in the Organ Transplant Act in the
present social milieu will open the doors for exploitation of the poor by the rich. The rich
people in search of organs will bribe the poor in to an early death, even when there is a
possibility of the poor surviving.But the politicians and the policy makers will have to pay
their attention to the issue of non heart beat donations, as it has already been allowed in
some developed countries.The question is why non-heart beat deaths cannot be
brought into the purview of the Act when it can benefit a large number of patients who
want to donate their organs to other needy persons. There are 162 registered patients
waiting for kidney transplant in five corporate hospitals in Hyderabad alone. If any such

permission has to be given, the law should be changed. Even a court cannot do that. It
has to be done by the Assembly or ParliamentBut it is not just the question of law. I
would here point out even bigger and more complex social aspects of the problem.
Perhaps we do not have the infrastructure to transplant the organs of every body. For
example, if any poor person is dying, a rich person can approach him, saying, 'Please
donate your organs to me, I will pay you.' As long as there are vulnerable poor people,
such laws will only increase exploitation.Unless we end this disparity in our system,
bringing such a law can be dangerous.
However, I agree that there has to be serious debate in the medical fraternity and
among the legislators and policy makers on the issue on inclusion of non-heart beat
cases in to the Human Organ Transplant Act. May be no such case had come to the
legislature's or Parliament's note. Now there can be representation to the legislators by
the people or the Medical Council of India to consider this.Organ transplant is a
relatively new thing for India. If we have to compromise with it, we will have to meet the
changes and challenges.Such a thing is viable only in highly civilized and developed
societies. Given the vast difference between the rich and the poor in our country, if we
bring such a thing today, any rich will buy the poor.With this end note, I would conclude
by saying that though Indian general public is ready to accept Mercy Killing, keeping in
view the opinion of the doctors' lobby, and some discussions offered by myself as
above, India is still not in apposition to accept Mercy Killing as Legalized medical tool.

Read more: Sociological analysis of mercy killing | Law

Teacher http://www.lawteacher.net/human-rights/essays/sociological-analysis-of-mercykilling.php#ixzz2b6bxq3xb
Follow us: @lawteachernet on Twitter | LawTeacherNet on Facebook

Euthanasia, "Mercy Killing"?

Euthanasia is often called mercy killing. It is intentionally making someone die, rather than allowing
that person to die naturally. It is sometimes the act of ending someones life, who is terminally ill, or is
suffering in severe pain. Euthanasia is mostly illegal in the world today. Euthanasia can be considered a
form of suicide, if the person afflicted with the problem actively does it. The person volunteering to
commit the act to that person can also consider it a form of murder.
The positive side of Euthanasia is that it ends a persons suffering in this world. Many physicians and
psychiatrists believe that it may a humane act. From a virtue ethics point of view, it may be
appropriate. What we seek in human existence is to be happy, and find happiness. Suffering from a
terminal illness, or affliction, could inhibit ones happiness in life. If the goal is to be happy, then
Euthanasia would be an answer for this person. Euthanasia may even bring about happiness in that it
is what the person desires and wants, in order to no longer to be a burden to his/her family. Also,
Euthanasia would stop the pain and not prolong the dying process.
In the utilitarian point of view we all have a duty to our happiness, and a duty to the society.
Euthanizing a person based on the society aspect makes sense. With greater and greater emphasis put
on managed care today, many doctors are at a financial risk when they provide treatments to patients
who are in the dying process. These patients may also feel like not becoming a burden to the society at
large, and choose to fulfill a duty Euthanasia. If the person is in a coma or is brain dead, that person
is no use to himself or herself, or society anymore. Euthanasia is a viable method to end an otherwise
futile attempt at recovery.
The family of the person being euthanized may not want their family members in pain to suffer. It can
be a family duty to do the right thing for the person and society. Depression, family conflict, feelings of
abandonment, and hopelessness, are emotional burdens on family members seeing a person suffer.
Committing euthanasia may be the humane act to do for the afflicted family member in this case.
The euthanized person may even be of use to society in...