Is mercy killing bad or good?

Answer 1

Mercy killing is bad and is always bad.

We are not God so we have no right to terminate or to terminate a person's life.

The issue of mercy killing comes up when the patient is suffering to an extent that the patient is not able to tolerate physically and mentally. A sufferer needs love, care, respect and comfort at that stage, not life termination.

From an opposite position, societies have always condoned mercy killings in some manner. It is most commonly found in militaries amongst front-line soldiers (from all societies), which the frank recognition of the deadly peril they face and the brutal possibilities of severe injury cause most soldiers to form "mercy killing" pacts with their comrades. Most soldiers have no moral compunction about killing a severely wounded comrade who's injuries are obviously fatal, but not immediately so, leaving the wounded comrade to suffer horribly for possibly hours or more.

Similarly, the possibility (or certainty) of facing torturous pain for an extended period while suffering from a terminal illness brings up the question of when is life actually worth living. There seems to be no real moral distinction between a soldier dispatching his mortally-wounded comrade and a doctor administering a lethal dose of narcotics to a terminally-ill patient, so long as the request comes from the dying person.

Mercy killing is all about "quality of life", while opponents of mercy killing focus on "sanctity of life" arguments. Frankly, I find "sanctity of life" arguments hypocritical and inconsistently applied across society, which in my opinion means they carry little weight. My personal opinion on this is that if a religion can condone killing in any circumstance (e.g. the "just war" or in defense of others), then there's no reason not to acquiesce to mercy killings - in both cases, you're protecting the innocent from an outside force that is causing pain and suffering (and, death) to those victims. Practically all religions condemn torture (for good reason) - how is forcing a terminally-ill patient to live though weeks or months of increasing pain any difference, especially since the terminally-ill patient will always die in the end.Similarly, I see this as no different than the withdrawal of life-support - we are giving a suffering patient the means to end their suffering.

In the end, it should be up to each and every one of us when to die. Denying a person control over their own fate is anathema to the core values of most Western countries. The key provision to all of this is that the request to die must come from the patient, not their family or the state, and it must be an honest request, not one made under duress. For this reason, I think it best be handed in the manner of a living will, where one states far in advance the conditions where they consider themselves too far gone, and want to be allowed to die (or have others kill them, if they cannot do it themselves).

Answer 2

It is wrong and is considered a form of homicide in most civilized countries. this is entirely different from passive neglect as the Batteries of Life are running down- and attempts to re-start are not done. Euthanasia may be legal in of all places, the Netherlands, but not elsewhere. There is some loose evidence that Mercy Killing in war situations ( in the middle ages) was practiced in the dark days of the Middle ages, but few specifics are known. This alone hints a barbarous custom akin to dueling.