Would you advocate mercy killing if ...........?

Question

(1) A person is bedridden with a painful fatal disease

(2) A person suddenly gets disabled where he needs total help from others in his daily life.

(3) A sick or an uncared old man who wish to die and seek mercy killing.

(4) A totally handicapped new born who is sure to suffer in life and will expose its parents too to life-time agony.

Are you in agreement with the religions that ban mercy killing or in its absence suicide?

Should not States with progressive outlook sanction mercy killing after close scrutiny of cases?

Answer 1

I believe that the decisions need to be made on a case by case basis in accordance with the will of the person and/or those in the family who have the most interaction with the person as an adult.



I do not believe we should prosecute those who seek to end their lives when their lives are guaranteed to be physically painful and overly burdensome.



I've been hospitalized once for pain that had me puking, stumbling, begging, and the only reason I could go on living was because I *knew* it was temporary. If it was not temporary, I would've killed myself.

Answer 2

Yes to all four. The fourth should really have never have been allowed by the parents to make it as far as birth, if it was that badly handicapped and they agreed with mercy killing. With the others I am assuming your question implies they have consented.



Yes, I believe states should sanction mercy killing after close scrutiny of cases.

Answer 3

Who is going to decide whether it is mercy or not? Who are we going to give that authority to? The courts? They have enough interference in our lives already. The family? It's hard when your heart is involved to do the "right" thing....me, I believe only God should be in control of Mercy. Everything is so messed up in this world. We think on every issue we need a law or something to tell us how to run everyone's life. Well here's one for you...a woman can elect to have an abortion and it is her right as a woman to end a "fetus'" life; but if a someone runs into her car in a car accident that was say the pregnant woman's fault, the driver of the other car can be charged with vehicular homicide if the baby dies in utero. See how everything gets mixed up? I don't want mercy to be left up to the courts, the lawyers and the doctors...they are human just like we are and none the wiser. We need a higher power for these decisions and everyone needs to have a living will to decide for themselves.

Answer 4

Oregon has euthanasia. But a person has to see three doctors and a psychiatrist and found to be of sound mind when making his declaration for euthanasia. They must also be within 90 days of natural death. The result is fewer suicides by terminally ill people. 6 to 8 people elect euthanasia annually. Far below the 1500 or so previously committing suicide because of medical, mental or incapacitation.



But, I would personally draw the line at making the decision for someone or saying their life not worth living. Such as that could lead on to such things as Nazi death camps.

Answer 5

I agree with mercy killing but ONLY if the person does have a very severe physical handicap or illness and if the person really wants to be killed. I mean, their life is going to be continuous pain otherwise and there are already 6 billion people on the planet. Why not starting to kill some of them?

Answer 6

I'm not in agreement with any religion about much of anything.



I'm not sure euthanasia needs to be made legal. But it should certainly be not-illegal.



I suspect that many a sufferer has been helped by a final dose of something, administered by a trusted doctor with the acknowledgement -- explicit or implicit -- of the patient's family. I further suspect that no prosecutor or judge would find fault with such cases.

Answer 7

I don't think Dr. Kevorkian was off in his philosophies. Legally he could have handled the circumstances better, but he was truly doing what the families and the patients wanted. Assisting suicide? You can't judge that until you are in the patient's shoes.



I work in Oncology and I see what cancer does to a person every day. Fight, fight, fight, go to the hospital for treatment day after day. When you're home, you can't do anything because of the anemia and fatigue associated with chemotherapy. Some patients live a long time, but others get caught in a downward spiral and never recover.

Answer 8

Only #3 I think mercy killings should only be for people who want them. Maybe 1 n 2 want to live despite the suffering and as far as the baby goes I guess I don't know.

Answer 9

I suggest that most of the people who are against mercy killing have never been in any of the circumstances that you describe above and have never had a close family member in one of those situations.



With proper due diligence - assisted suicide is a very, very humane way to go.

Answer 10

Wow, what a question? I guess morally i couldn't assist in terminating anyone's life unless mine was threatened (meaning if i was under attack). But on the other hand if i was in any of those situations you mentioned, I would seek the help in a quick (unnatural) death. I am very conservative person and i think that there should be a choice in all aspects of life and death.

Answer 11

I advocate doctor assisted suicide,as long as it's the persons choice to die it's their right. But mercy killing is entirely another matter,once you start making the choice for someone it's just murder.



AD

Answer 12

I'm not too sure about #2--just because someone needs care doesn't mean you should kill him to avoid having to take care of him. But, someone who is suffering, where there is no hope of recovery--why on earth not? We do it for dogs and cats. Aren't people worthy of the same compassion? My friend's mother was in kidney failure. They had to sit at her bedside as her body swelled up with fluids, she lapsed into unconsciousness and took several days to die. When my dog had kidney failure, we were able to have her painlessly slip away as I held her in my arms.

It's really not that difficult to determine when something like this is the best course of action. And, think about it: we don't

"play god" when we take people off life support. We played god when we put them on it.

Answer 13

I believe in Mercy killing as a choice for the terminally ill. We euthanize animals that are in pain and have humans starve to death by removing feeding tubes or live in complete pain and humiliation that they are helpless.

Answer 14

The human soul is sent by God and taken away by Him only. Hence, it sacred.

Religion prohibits killing except by the state for crimes only.

Therefore, pray God to relieve the sufferer from the agony, but kill him not!

Answer 15

"Mercy killing" is the most vile oxymoron imaginable. Call it what it is - euthanasia.



If assisted suicide is permitted, then what will keep doctors from encouraging suicide for people who cannot pay for their hospital bills?



"Mercy" involves making the person comfortable without any pain in the last days of his or her life. It also means supportig the dying person emotionally and spiritually.



Instead of death, give the dying person care, compassion, and comfort.



A person who is given the care that he deserves will not want seek euthanasia.



The State is not the author of life. There is nothing "progressive' about killing another person, no matter who that person is.

Answer 16

I would have rather let my grandfather die in peace instead of being hooked up to so many tubes and monitors in the end. The picture of him in the hospital bed was burned into my mind.

Answer 17

In one and two, you don't say that that's what THEY want. That's crucial. Don't have enough info for 4, either. It depends; maybe the answer is make it not horrible for the parents.

Answer 18

1 no

2no

3 no

4 no

i am not in agreement with mercy killing persay, but i am not againt assisted suicide, there is a difference, assisted suicide gives the person in question all the power, he/she has the right to choose,i do not have the right to choose for them/

Answer 19

There are many genuine cases and it is need of the time. Proper modus-operendie to be framed for correct implementations.

Answer 20

many religions believe that if a life is taken before its time the soul cannot rest, which causes the spirit to be in limbo.

Answer 21

Ask Jack Kavorkian, he didn't get such a receptive treatment by the state.

Answer 22

1. yes

2. yes

3. yes

4. I don't know enough about the quality of life for the mentally disabled to comment.

Answer 23

yes i totally agree with mercy killing (assisted suicide) but there must be safeguards in place

Answer 24

Yes, yes, yes and yes. No in agreement with religions. And yes to your last question.

Answer 25

Ask Santa Claus. He's debating if he should do it to his crazy elves.

Answer 26

Absolutely not. Just look to the Bible for your answer. God never killed anyone.

Answer 27

Do you accept that someone enters your home & start to sell your properties , burn your inventions or punish your children becaus he sees it is the right thing to be done.



It is the same !



We belong to our creator & he will do the right thing on the right time. It is not our decision.

Answer 28

too long .. SIGH !

Answer 29

No!