Acceptability of Mercy Killing of the Terminally Ill (Research Paper Sample)

Acceptability of Mercy Killing of the Terminally Ill
Name
Institution
Acceptability of Mercy Killing of the Terminally Ill
Mercy killing of the terminally ill is among the end-of-life issues that raise controversies owing to their moral, ethical, and legal implications. Whereas some observers feel that ending a life to stop suffering is acceptable, others argue that the negative implications of such a move outweigh any benefits (Webb, 2005). Weighing the views raised by both sides of the debate helps provide a balanced approach to discussion, upon which the arguments for allowing mercy killing of the terminally ill appear more compelling.
The most pertinent argument behind support for mercy killing is the need to end suffering (Dowbiggin, 2003). In this case, people suffering from terminal diseases may also be experiencing extreme pain to which there is no end in sight given the nature of their diseases. The inability of any medical intervention to end pain in any other way exacerbates the already wanting quality of lives led by such terminally ill individuals. Mercy killing is arguably acceptable in such scenarios, given that denying the patients a way out of pain would be questionable because the overriding aim of medicine is to reduce such pain and suffering (Dowbiggin, 2003). The most important consideration is to ensure that the decision to undertake mercy killing is made competently. This requirement calls for authoritative input by medical experts to determine the need for mercy killing according to the terminal illness and pain experienced. Further, there should be informed consent from a qualified individual during the entire process, which accentuates the role of the medical practitioners in preventing any abuse of the practice of mercy killing (Webb, 2005). With such considerations in place, mercy killing of terminally ill individuals to end suffering should be allowed.
Considerations of patient rights and personal liberties also indicate a strong case for allowing mercy killing among the terminally ill. Here, modern medical practice supports the rights of the patients to choose therapies and refuse certain treatments from an informed position (Dowbiggin, 2003). The role of the multidisciplinary team catering for a patient has transformed into one that seeks to inform him or her, ensuring that the treatment goes according to the patient’s wishes. By extension, an informed patient should also have the right to select the option of mercy killing as a way of opting out of suffering (Dowbiggin, 2003). The caregiver’s role should be to ensure that the patient is making an informed decision.
One of the arguments raised by opponents of mercy killing entails concerns about a slippery slope in which mercy killing would be abused by family members and medical practitioners with selfish ends (Sereny, 2013). This concern is of heightened importance because most terminally ill and suffering patients may not be in a posit