Does a "Mercy Killing" Constitute Murder..?

[The Data Mage]

I think the problem here is the law rather than ethics. Law is based on a rigid system of unsweying iron fists. Laws are written in black and white (for anyone that has had to listen to years of statutary law would know). They specifiy every little detail that the law maker has in his head at any time. It's then submitted, modified, more details added etc etc.

Judges are able to interprit the law to a degree, newer laws are easier to interprit because no previous cases have to be referred to in search of a president (not the guy in charge but a previous ruling, damn I cant remember the actual word or spelling).

Then we get to the murky grounds of death. With political correctness run awry, human rights and what's percieved as what we should be.

[damn, I'm trying to go back to the cases we had to go over on Euthinasia in law, why why why couldn't this thread have been two years ago...]

I think I remember it was deemed illegal to euthinise someone even with permission or prior permission (ie, I'm well now but if I deteriorate, you can pull the plug straight away, dont keep me there). Because of the financial gain. Doctors in America who base everything on insurance I belive, have a duty to find out if the patient can recover, if not, end the monetry drain asap. Families might want to pull the plug quickly because of that big will their gran parent will leave behind.

It's virtually the same in England. We have similar laws, even had a big case on the news where the person gave prior concent, gave concent all the way through and I think her husband killed her in the end and was charged with murder. Another case where someone went to holland I think, and she was euthinised there but our law courts tried to prosicute the person that took them there.

In my opinion this situation cannot be set out into a list of black and white YES and NOs, this is because each case should be worked on in an individual basis, looking at who ending the life benifits most, making sure that if the option of euthinasia is open, it's not neglected but also not jumped to too quickly.

 

[neomatrixjc]

To me it does constitute murder, if a person wishes to die they have a nice little option of committing suicide. Is suicide right, no not in my book, but it does constitute a choice. If a person truly wishes to die, then yes they should have the choice, but that choice does not give another  person the right to do the job for them. I mean how does one person (the one doing the act of mercy killing) have the right to end anothers life because they thought they were killing in the name of good. If the cords are pulled in the hospital and done by family of the patient in the hospital. then yes that can happen because that is in legality. Dr Death enjoyed killing the people he did, all you had to say to him, hey dude what do I have to do for you to kill me. and then Dr. Death would mark his appointment and do the job, it was his proffesion.

Point is Mercy Killing is a lame excuse to murder somebody. But if your the type of person that thinks that you can kill a person and said that you did in the mercy of the victims own asking. then you did yourself more a favor by ending that persons life cause you chose to go along with the killing.

 

[The Data Mage]

Wow, you are more shallow than a puddle, have you read nothing of this topic thus far?

What if a person is in pain but is a quadraplegic? They have no ability to kill themselves. Thus the mention of the court case mentioned in my last post.

You nead to learn to read. Seriously. God isn't considdered in euthinasia (unless you're Catholic [which was another thing we had to look at in law, for some reason, the considderation of religion. This is possibly to better guage the person's mind set and intent, along with the family.])

 

[___]

I think a lot of the problem with brain dead patients has to do with nonsense superstition. Enough people still believe that you can wish away or pray out brain damage or whatever and miraculously revive the patient. Combine them with a medical profession that has a huge vested interest in keeping these people alive - vegetables are like the artists' royalties or the website owner's advertising money, they're a long-term and nearly free source of income. They can help keep hospitals in the black.

There are also those cases where a person has been misdiagnosed of course, and then 'miraculously' awaken, but that's more an indictment of the thoroughness of medical practice than the ethics of euthanasia / pulling the plug. They are commonly cited in support of miraculous recoveries.

 

[skirtboy]

From a religious standpoint, any burden of sin would fall on the killer, not the killee. This means that for those who believe that suicide is a sin, a "mercy killing" is far more palatable.

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

Voluntary euthanasia IS suicide though.  So only 1/3rd of the mercy killing is excluded.
Furthermore many believe that if you simply allow it, you helped by not having it stopped.  Now none are excluded to just the killer.

 

[Dissonance]

Furthermore many believe that if you simply allow it, you helped by not having it stopped.  Now none are excluded to just the killer.

Enjoy your shitty reasoning and your slippery slope.

This basically gives every random misguided faggot the right to be batman (like me :3 )

 

[The Data Mage]

From a religious standpoint, any burden of sin would fall on the killer, not the killee. This means that for those who believe that suicide is a sin, a "mercy killing" is far more palatable.

Suicide is a sin to Catholics, and I believe other religions, whether someone else actually "pulls the trigger" as such, the intent is still there and thus the sin is still executed.

I suppose, when considdering the "M" word (murder lol). We have to look at who benifits from the death of the euthinized person.

~If the patient is brain dead, pulling the plug can benifit different people in different ways. For example:

If Mr John Smith was shot in the head. He's now brain dead. Science says that he doesn't feel or notice anything. So, now who benifits by the plugs being pulled?

1. The hospital saves money by not keeping him on life support, it also frees up a bed.
2. The family benifit financially as they're not having to spend money on it, plus they can (in theory) start the healing process and move on instead of sitting at this brain dead man's side day after day.
3. The family and extanded family could benifit from the will, (though in this case, the mans possessions would stay with his family, ie, wife, childen).
4. Little Suzy, down in another ward has needed a new organ for a long while, she's been given days to live now. With this man dead, she has a chance of survival. (oh and please don't bother saying about the organs being the wrong size or about blood type incompatibilities as this is simply an example).

Any other suggestions to this answer?

 

[___]

From a religious standpoint, any burden of sin would fall on the killer, not the killee. This means that for those who believe that suicide is a sin, a "mercy killing" is far more palatable.

Suicide is a sin to Catholics, and I believe other religions, whether someone else actually "pulls the trigger" as such, the intent is still there and thus the sin is still executed.

I suppose, when considdering the "M" word (murder lol). We have to look at who benifits from the death of the euthinized person.

~If the patient is brain dead, pulling the plug can benifit different people in different ways. For example:

If Mr John Smith was shot in the head. He's now brain dead. Science says that he doesn't feel or notice anything. So, now who benifits by the plugs being pulled?

1. The hospital saves money by not keeping him on life support, it also frees up a bed.

This is false, hospitals that offer long term life support turn a very tidy profit on these guys for as long as they can collect fees from family. Once the money runs out, so does the life support, but until then it's guaranteed profit.

I think your other points are valid, the problem is convincing a family in an irrational state to accept a highly rational argument against life support, especially when they have the hospital and their religious leaders pressuring them to keep it on.

 

[DeM0nFiRe]

Furthermore many believe that if you simply allow it, you helped by not having it stopped.  Now none are excluded to just the killer.

Enjoy your shitty reasoning and your slippery slope.

This basically gives every random misguided faggot the right to be batman (like me :3 )

Actually, depending on what country you are in there's a law that says exactly what Deputy 60 said. In the United States, the 'Good Samaritan Law' requires that any bystander to a crime has the legal responsibility to help the victim within reasonable risk (I.E. a civilian does not have to rush into a burning building)

While the reasoning behind it is a slippery slope fallacy, the law is there.

 

[___]

That law doesn't exist everywhere, I believe it's unique to New York State. In any case this is more of a debate on morality or what the law *should* be, so arguing from authority is also a fallacy - i.e. just because that's the law doesn't mean it's right.

 

[The Data Mage]

On this point then, I still say that the law is too rigid on this problem and I believe that unlike the law's statutory outlines, we need to move on with the way we look at this. Whether it be a court system dedicated to these cases, which in theory wouldn't need to be extremely large and have a few representatives in each area, where the options of euthinasia were there and people could represent their cases.

Another option would be revising the laws. Give it a couple hundred years and religions will become so diluted so that the ratio of die-hard devoutists (not a word but w/e) that protest against it and abortion (another form of mercy killing I don't think has been covered yet), that the law will be able to change without too much protest.

 

[FlippyD]

You know, there are people who aren't religious who are against abortion and taking folks off life support, right?

 

[FlippyD]

edit: sorry, accidental double-post

 

[The Data Mage]

You know, there are people who aren't religious who are against abortion and taking folks off life support, right?

Of course, but if you learn about law, statutory law is heavily influenced by both social trends and religion. Though the dependance on religion is in heavy decline in recent years because of the irrational ideas it throws up.

And people make irrational decisions when they are in distressed situations. Like those that can't let go of what has already in all sense "gone". Or being over empathic and percieving the patient as being in more pain than they are (like vets saying "this dog must be in agnony" etc without the dog actually stating it lol).

Please think me a little more intelligent than believing the only person that doesnt like euthinasisa is the Pope. :p We all have a set of morals instilled in us, whether they be dictated by religion, upbringing or social values. I know that.

 

[DeM0nFiRe]

Oh, and while we are back on the subject of law, a mercy killing is first degree murder in most countries by definition. A killing with intent to kill, outside of warfare, and it is premeditated. So technically speaking, yes a mercy killing constitutes murder.

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

This basically gives every random misguided faggot the right to be batman (like me :3 )

Playing batman is a point to what I brought up on other people's beliefs.

On top of those barbaric Good Samaritan laws (yes I called them barbaric - but that's another topic)...
In many religious laws if you know a man who has committed adultery you are as good as an adulterer yourself if you did nothing to bring that man to justice (or at least inform the ignorant lover).  If you know someone killed, you are as guilty as the killer in even today's society - 'accomplice to murder' charges, and all.

Depending on your environment's collective and major moral beliefs you simply can't allow certain things to happen, without being as criminal as those employing the act.

The Pope for example would say that those who assist in allowing someone to end their life, or even those who knowingly let another do so is equally heavy in sin, as the one committing suicide.  It's the same theory as to why some people defend others by targeting and assaulting bullies.

To see a crime, and do nothing is in and of itself criminal.
Therefore for those who view a mercy killing as a crime, it is criminal to not fight against it.  I myself would then be criminal for my beliefs on mercy killings being a viable and justified form of medicine.

Obviously when I say that I am referring to it in the same way all viable and justified forms of medicine is looked at, that being on an informed and consenting case.

 

[Yaxor]

Well, when someone have a terminal illnes, or he will never be able to recover from a coma (and wen you are 100% sure of this), i think that unplugging the plug is NOT A MURDER. I mean, when it's about 10 years of illness and that people is on coma and will pass suffering but will never recover, i think that ending his suffering is the best thing to do. When you have the permission of the familly, it should be done, whatever the laws are.

For instance, here in Italy it's from 1992 that a girl is on coma and will NEVER recover. The family is ok, but the laws are not. And then again, fucking pope that intromits in political matters.

 

[The Data Mage]

And thus the point returns to law being govened by religious and social views rather than rational common sense.

 

[DeM0nFiRe]

For instance, here in Italy it's from 1992 that a girl is on coma and will NEVER recover. The family is ok, but the laws are not. And then again, fucking pope that intromits in political matters.

Ehh, talking about someone who's in a coma for so many years is sticky business. In most cases, the person is not suffering because they are unconscious, and after so many years, they can find new ways to treat previously untreatable conditions, and it does happen with coma victims.