short essay about mercy killing

You are using an outdated browser. Upgrade your browser today or install Google Chrome Frame to better experience this site.

Mercy killing debate: should euthanasia be legalized?

Source: This image was created for netivist.org. If you want to use it you simply need to  attribute it by linking  to this page or to  https://netivist.org . Thanks

Many new cases of physician-assisted suicide or mercy killing are emerging in Western countries. Some of them have regulated it. Do you think euthanasia  should be legalized? Under what circumstances? Do we have the right to die as we choose?

Mercy Killing Debate

Euthanasia or physician- assisted suicide , also know as mercy killing , is becoming a prominent public debate . The implications of legalizing assisted suicide are wide-ranging from a  medical , legal, political and ethical point of view. 

The term euthanasia means "good death" in Greek. With the progress of medicine in multiple domains (e.g. anesthesiology, pain medicine) came the problem of the decision of death. Some countries, like for instance Belgium, The Netherlands, and some states in the USA, including New Mexico, Montana, Oregon and Vermont, have passed laws allowing voluntary euthanasia. But the legality of choosing the moment of death is an extremely controversial subject because it appeals to personal views on ethics and morality and is highly emotional and linked to religious beliefs. Most countries still consider euthanasia a crime . Some people consider allowing euthanasia to risk opening a slippery slope where killing may become more common, and risk the killing of people misinformed or against their will. These people also worry about the risk of killing any person with some sort of suffering (e.g. mental disability, physical handicap). Supporters of euthanasia claim it is an individual right to decide when to die, to keep control of their fate when it is still possible.

Types of euthanasia

There are different types of euthanasia according to whether the will of the patient has been expressed.

• Voluntary euthanasia : to intentionally end the life of someone who asked for it to relieve physical pain and psychological suffering. It can be considered as assisted suicide. Patient gives informed consent. An official signed document in which one declares one wants to be euthanized.
• Non-voluntary euthanasia : consent of the patient is unavailable. Usually family members are asked about the possible will of the patient as well as their own wish.
• Involuntary euthanasia is against the patient’s will and is illegal, considered as murder, in most countries. 

Euthanasia can also be divided into:

• Passive euthanasia:  when the family or medical staff withhold life support (e.g. medication, respiratory machine, feeding or liquids) from the patient.
• Active euthanasia: when the patient is administered (e.g. injected) a lethal dose of any chemical substance to end her/life. 

And you? Do you support  mercy killing ?   Should euthanasia be legalized? Before voting and commenting you may want to consider the pros and cons of legalizing physician-assisted suicide (see below).

Watch this video on the mercy killing debate

Euthanasia pros and cons

• Dying with dignity: some people are deeply sick, postrated and unable to do even the most basic human actions, such as eating, changing clothes, washing themselves or using the toilets. They often find their state degrading and humilliating and may prefer to die with dignity and stop being a burden to those around them.
• End to human suffering: people with terminal illness and no chance of recovery often suffer great physical pain and emotional distress. Ending their lives, if they wish so, can spare them from an unnecessary suffering.
• Legal certainty: according to research conducted in the Netherlands, regulating euthanasia has improved legal certainty and has contributed to the carefulness of assisted suicide.
• Healthcare spending: keeping alive terminal patients who are suffering and not able to recover is also very expensive and detracts medical resources from other patients who could heal or need treatments. Families of the patients who want to end their lives may also face bills which can very negatively affect their finances.
• Autonomy and self-determination: opposing to someone's will of ending her/his life goes against that person freedom and right of deciding on their future.
• Moral and ethical problems: physician assisted death clashes with religious beliefs. Many religions state that human life end should not be decided by people but by God. 
• Misunderstandings and errors: there are cases in which doctors have wrongfully diagnosed a terminal disease or have thought that a patient is without hope of recovery. However, medicine evolves and cures may be found. Some new treatments may become effective were others failed. So terminating someone's life even with her/his consent may be a mistake.
• Legalizing murder: regulating euthanasia for some extreme cases may mean crossing a line. It has been argued that this could be a slippery slope which could end up with the legalization of an increasing number of cases for ending a life for utilitarian reasons.
• Abuse: if euthanasia is legal, there may be an incentive to exaggerate the negative condition of patients so that the family decides to "disconnect" them so that the hospital or insurance company saves money.
• Complexity: even if countries decide to legalize euthanasia, there may be great difficulties in agreeing with the cases and situations in which these mercy killings are acceptable and with the legal procedures that should be respected.

Taking all these pros and cons into consideration and the experience in the territories where it has been legalized, what would you recommend doing?

You may also want to participate in our debates on the legalization of  cannabis , prostitution , and  same sex marriage .

Vote to see result and collect 1 XP. Your vote is anonymous. If you change your mind, you can change your vote simply by clicking on another option.

Voting results

New to netivist?

Join with confidence, netivist is completely advertisement free. You will not receive any promotional materials from third parties.

Or sign in with your favourite Social Network:

Join the debate

In order to join the debate you must be logged in.

Already have an account on netivist? Just login . New to netivist? Create your account for free .

 Report Abuse and Offensive language

Was there any kind of offensive or inappropriate language used in this comment.

If you feel this user's conduct is unappropriate, please report this comment and our moderaters will review its content and deal with this matter as soon as possible.

NOTE: Your account might be penalized should we not find any wrongdoing by this user. Only use this feature if you are certain this user has infringed netivist's Terms of Service .

Our moderators will now review this comment and act accordingly. If it contains abusive or inappropriate language its author will be penalized.

Posting Comment

Your comment is being posted. This might take a few seconds, please wait.

Error Posting Comment

  error.

We are having trouble saving your comment. Please try again .

Most Voted Debates

Start a Debate

Would you like to create a debate and share it with the netivist community? We will help you do it!

Found a technical issue?

Are you experiencing any technical problem with netivist? Please let us know!

Help netivist

Help netivist continue running free!

Please consider making a small donation today. This will allow us to keep netivist alive and available to a wide audience and to keep on introducing new debates and features to improve your experience.

• What is netivist?
• Entertainment
• Top Debates
• Top Campaigns
• Provide Feedback

Follow us on social media:

 Share by Email

There was an error...

Email successfully sent to:

Join with confidence, netivist is completely advertisement free You will not recive any promotional materials from third parties

 Join netivist

Already have a netivist account?

If you already created your netivist account, please log in using the button below.

If you are new to netivist, please create your account for free and start collecting your netivist points!

You just leveled up!

Congrats you just reached a new level on Netivist. Keep up the good work.

Together we can make a difference

Follow us and don't miss out on the latest debates!

1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology

Philosophy, One Thousand Words at a Time

Euthanasia, or Mercy Killing

Author: Nathan Nobis Category: Ethics Word count: 1000

Listen here

Sadly, there are people in very bad medical conditions who want to die. They are in pain, they are suffering, and they no longer find their quality of life to be at an acceptable level anymore.

When people like this are kept alive by machines or other medical treatments, can it be morally permissible to let them die ?

Advocates of “passive euthanasia” argue that it can be. Their reasons, however, suggest that it can sometimes be not wrong to actively kill some patients, i.e., that “active euthanasia” can be permissible also. [1] This essay reviews these arguments.

1. Passive Euthanasia

Denying that passive euthanasia is ever morally permissible suggests that we must always do everything we can to try to keep someone alive, even if they are miserable, want to die, and say so. To many, that’s just cruel. [2]

Passive euthanasia can be directly supported by both consequentialist (or utilitarian) and Kantian ethics. [3]

For the consequentialist, the patient being out of their misery is a better consequence for them , and overall, than their staying alive: this decreases the total amount of pain and unhappiness in the world, and no other choice would produce more good, for them or overall.

For a Kantian, letting them die respects their autonomy or decisions about matters that profoundly affect their own lives: this respects them as “ends in themselves,” whereas forcing them to live treats them as a “mere means” toward our ends, not their own.

Passive euthanasia can also be supported by stating conditions when it can be OK to let someone die. We begin with an ‘if’ and develop a principle:

(a) someone is dying, and (b) is in horrible pain and suffering, and (c) that pain and suffering cannot be relieved, and (d) that person wants to die and says so, and (e) informed, thoughtful and caring people agree that the person would be better off no longer living . . ,

then it can be permissible to let that person die. [4]

Passive euthanasia, then, can be justified in a variety of ways.

2. Active Euthanasia

To see why active euthanasia might be permissible, we begin by reflecting on why passive euthanasia might be OK: it gets people out of their misery and respects what they want for their own lives.

We then observe that these goals can often be pursued more directly and immediately by, say, giving them an overdose of pain-killing medications. Letting people die can take a long time, and that time might be full of unwanted suffering. Killing people, when they want to be killed, achieves their goals, more quickly.

So, it seems that if passive euthanasia can be permissible, so can active.

3. Objections

There are many objections to this reasoning. Some concern euthanasia in general.

3.1. Some claim that pain can always be controlled and so there is never a need to euthanize anyone. However, this insistence that pain can always be made bearable is, sadly, not true.

3.2. Some argue that “miracles” are possible – there’s always a chance that someone recovers – and so euthanasia is wrong. But making important decisions on very unlikely chances is often unwise. Most interestingly though, euthanasia would never prevent a miracle, especially one of divine origins.

Further objections claim there are important differences between active and passive euthanasia, making passive permissible but active wrong.

3.3. Some argue that it’s always wrong to intentionally kill someone, so active euthanasia is wrong. In reply, while it’s, at least, nearly always wrong to kill people, this is arguably because people usually want to live and do not have lives full of pain. Perhaps killing can be justified when this is not the case. [5]

3.4. Some argue that allowing active euthanasia might put us on a “slippery slope” to murdering people who want to live. But this hasn’t happened where active euthanasia is allowed, since we do and would have safeguards to lessen this possibility, as we do with other things that might lead to bad results if misused.

3.5. Some argue that there are important moral differences between allowing something to happen and doing something or because killing someone and letting them die are profoundly different, and so passive and active euthanasia should be judged differently. But consider this case:

An aunt will inherit lots of money if her five-year-old nephew dies. She plans to drown him in the bathtub and make it look like an accident. He just started his bath; she’s on her way to the bathroom to drown him. She opens the bathroom door and is delighted to see that he has slipped in the bathtub and is drowning. She watches, ready to push him under if he steadies himself and saves his own life. But, as her luck would have it, he drowns; she never touches him throughout the ordeal. She inherits the money. [6]

If she claimed that she didn’t “do anything,” she did : she stood there, and doing nothing is doing something . And letting someone die can be as bad , or nearly as bad , and perhaps sometimes even worse than killing someone [7] : indeed, a way to kill someone is to let them die. So these distinctions are, at least, not clear.

3.6. A final concern is that especially if active euthanasia were allowed, some people could be wrongfully killed. This is possible: some people might wrongfully break (potentially good) rules. But we cannot ignore that if euthanasia is not allowed, it might be that some people could be wrongly kept alive. Which wrong is more likely? Which wrong is worse?

4. Conclusion

While death is, arguably, usually bad for the person who dies, the goal of euthanasia is to make this less bad: the word euthanasia means a “good death.” These issues are important, and not just for people currently facing hard choices about death. None of us knows what will happen to us: at any time, an accident or illness might force these issues upon us, and so we should engage them more deeply, now. [8]

[1] The discussion and arguments here are largely based on James Rachels ’ (1941-2003) famous and widely-reprinted article “ Active and Passive Euthanasia,” New England Journal of Medicine 1975; 292: 78-80 .

[2] The discussion here concerns what’s called voluntary euthanasia, where a person wants to die and says so. There are other types of euthanasia though. Non-voluntary euthanasia involves an individual who neither wants to die nor wants to live, e.g., someone who has been unconscious for a long time, say in a coma, and we have good reason to believe that consciousness will never return: they currently don’t literally want anything and we usually don’t know what they would have wanted , since people usually don’t discuss this. What is sometimes called involuntary “euthanasia” involves someone who wants to live and says so . If such a person is let die or killed, this is not euthanasia: in all or nearly all cases, this is murder or wrongful killing , and so won’t be discussed further here.

These definitions cover most actual cases of euthanasia, but they aren’t perfect. First, it could happen that someone said that, if they were to fall into a permanent coma, they would very much want their body to be kept alive for as long as possible, but nobody knows this is what they wanted: if they are euthanized, is that in voluntary or non -voluntary? It could also happen that someone wants to die, but has no way of communicating that (suppose they have an extreme form of “ locked-in syndrome ,” with eye paralysis too, so they cannot even blink out messages): if they are euthanized, is that voluntary or non-voluntary? These cases are unclear, given the characterizations above, as are further possibilities of someone who wants to die but nobody knows that and someone who wants to live but nobody can tell .

Non-human animals who are judged to have a poor quality of life due to serious health problems are often (actively) euthanized: is this best considered a form of non-voluntary euthanasia, or potentially a different type of voluntary euthanasia? These animals have some current wants or desires, unlike a coma patient, but probably don’t have a specific want or desire to die, unlike in typical voluntary euthanasia cases. 

[3] Consequentialism and Kantianism can be used to support euthanasia (although Kant himself might have opposed it: Kant’s own judgments on many moral issues and the positions on moral issues that his theories arguably support sometimes diverge). But these theories do urge us to be very cautious about bringing about someone’s death, including our own.

Consequentialists would, and should, urge especially anyone who doesn’t have a challenging medical condition but wishes to die to seek counseling and assistance to help find happiness and fulfillment: in most cases, this would be better than death for that person and for promoting overall happiness. “ It gets better ,” the saying goes: it’s possible for someone to be euthanized (passively or actively), or commit suicide (if someone euthanizes themselves, this is a type of suicide; if they need assistance to do this, this is assisted suicide ), whose death is not in their own best interest or contributes to the greatest overall good. Indeed, some people have wished to die, have been prevented from ending their own life, come to appreciate their own life later, and then have been glad that they had not ended their life when they wanted to do so earlier. (However, it’s also sometimes true that people want to die, they live, and are eventually able to live what they report to be fulfilling lives, yet they still they wish they had died: Dax Cowart is a well-known case perhaps like this).

And Kantians don’t think that autonomy is unrestricted or limitless: just because we want something for ourselves doesn’t mean we should get it. Kantians firmly reject an attitude of “It’s your life, so do whatever you want with it,” since we have obligations to respect ourselves (and our future selves), given our value as persons, and this respect for ourselves could rule out some cases of euthanasia and suicide.

[4] The details of a principle like this, however, take us to harder questions about euthanasia, harder than those that arise in most circumstances: for examples, what if someone wants to die now but isn’t currently in horrible pain and suffering, or is expecting to die, but many years later after a very slow decline? Should anyone else have “say” over your own life or judge whether some pain and suffering is “horrible enough” for you to reasonably wish to die? If so, who? What if someone isn’t dying and doesn’t even have a bad medical condition but just finds their life not worth living and so wants to die (and so, say, plans to starve themselves to death or do other things that will result in their death)? These harder questions, and others, would need to be addressed for a complete defense of this or similar principles and any arguments based on them.

[5] Some might claim that their intention in any euthanasia is not to kill anyone: killing is an unintended consequence of their real intention, which might be to make the patient comfortable. If this makes sense, they might claim that they are not engaged in any intentional killing, so they aren’t violating any moral principle against intentional killing. This type of reasoning is related to what’s called the “Doctrine of Double Effect.”

[6] This case is from James Rachels. Here is another example that addresses the distinction between doing something versus allowing something to happen :

In a deep forest, hiking alone, Adam finds someone who has fallen into a deep pit. They ask him to throw them a rope so they can climb out. Adam doesn’t and they eventually starve to death. Adam learns of this on the news but feels fine since, he tells himself, “I didn’t do anything there. I did nothing wrong.”

To most, Adam clearly did something  –  he didn’t just allow something to happen – and he did something wrong: what he did , standing there not throwing the rope, was wrong.

[7] For tragic reflections that letting someone die can be worse than killing them, see Gary Comstock, “You Should Not Have Let Your Baby Die,” The New York Times , July 12, 2017 .

[8] Thanks to Zach Blaesi, Taylor Cyr, Chelsea Haramia, Dan Lowe, Travis Rodgers and Dan Peterson for comments on and discussion of this essay.

Gary Comstock, “You Should Not Have Let Your Baby Die,” The New York Times , July 12, 2017 .

James Rachels, “Active and Passive Euthanasia,” New England Journal of Medicine 1975; 292: 78-80.

For Further Reading

Young, Robert, “Voluntary Euthanasia”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta .

Cholbi, Michael, “Suicide”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.) .

Woollard, Fiona and Howard-Snyder, Frances, “Doing vs. Allowing Harm”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.) .

McIntyre, Alison, “Doctrine of Double Effect”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.) .

Related Essays

Applied Ethics by Chelsea Haramia

The Badness of Death by Duncan Purves

Is Death Bad? Epicurus and Lucretius on the Fear of Death by Frederik Kaufman

The Doctrine of Double Effect: Do Intentions Matter to Ethics? by Gabriel Andrade

Deontology: Kantian Ethics by Andrew Chapman

Consequentialism by Shane Gronholz

Principlism in Biomedical Ethics: Respect for Autonomy, Non-Maleficence, Beneficence, and Justice  by G. M. Trujillo, Jr.

Can We Believe in Miracles? by Tomas Bogardus

Possibility and Necessity: An Introduction to Modality  by Andre Leo Rusavuk

Are We Animals? Animalism and Personal Identity by Kristin Seemuth Whaley

PDF Download

Download this essay in PDF . 

Acknowledgments 

This essay is an abbreviated version of a longer chapter of the same title published in Noah Levin, ed.,  Introduction to Ethics: An Open Educational Resource (NGE Press, 2019) .  Nathan is grateful to Noah Levin for the occasion and inspiration to write these essays. 

About the Author

Nathan Nobis is a Professor of Philosophy at Morehouse College, Atlanta, GA. He is the author of Animals & Ethics 101 , co-author of  Thinking Critically About Abortion , a co-author of  Chimpanzee Rights , and author or co-author of many other articles, chapters, and reviews in philosophy and ethics. www.NathanNobis.com

Follow 1000-Word Philosophy on  Facebook  and  Twitter  and subscribe to receive email notifications of new essays at  1000WordPhilosophy.com .

Share this:, 11 thoughts on “ euthanasia, or mercy killing ”.

• Pingback: The Doctrine of Double Effect: Do Intentions Matter to Ethics? – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Psychological Approaches to Personal Identity: Do Memories and Consciousness Make Us Who We Are? – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Are We Animals? Animalism and Personal Identity – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Principlism in Biomedical Ethics: Respect for Autonomy, Non-Maleficence, Beneficence, and Justice – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Personal Identity – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Is Death Bad? Epicurus and Lucretius on the Fear of Death – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Ethics: A Collection of Online Resources and Key Quotes - The Daily Idea
• Pingback: Ethics: A Collection of Online Resources and Key Quotes – The Daily Idea
• Pingback: Speciesism – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Applied Ethics – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Online Philosophy Resources Weekly Update - Daily Nous

Comments are closed.

30,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Meet top uk universities from the comfort of your home, here’s your new year gift, one app for all your, study abroad needs, start your journey, track your progress, grow with the community and so much more.

Verification Code

An OTP has been sent to your registered mobile no. Please verify

Thanks for your comment !

Our team will review it before it's shown to our readers.

• School Education /

Essay on Euthanasia: 100, 200 and 300 Words Samples

• Updated on  
• Feb 22, 2024

Essay on Euthanasia: Euthanasia refers to the act of killing a person without any emotions or mercy. Euthanasia is an ethnically complex and controversial topic, with different perspectives and legal regulations on different topics. School students and individuals preparing for competitive exams are given assigned topics like essays on euthanasia. The objective of such topics is to check the candidate’s perspectives and what punishment should be morally and legally right according to them. 

If you are assigned an essay on euthanasia, it means your examiner or teacher wants to know your level of understanding of the topic. In this article, we will provide you with some samples of essays on euthanasia. Feel free to take ideas from the essays discussed below.

Master the art of essay writing with our blog on How to Write an Essay in English .

Table of Contents

• 1 Essay on Euthanasia in 150 Words
• 2.1 Euthanasia Vs Physician-Assisted Suicide
• 2.2 Euthanasia Classification
• 3 Is Euthanasia Bad?

Essay on Euthanasia in 150 Words

Euthanasia or mercy killing is the act of deliberately ending a person’s life.  This term was coined by Sir Francis Bacon. Different countries have their perspectives and laws against such harmful acts. The Government of India, 2016, drafted a bill on passive euthanasia and called it ‘The Medical Treatment of Terminally Ill Patient’s Bill (Protection of Patients and Medical Practitioners). 

Euthanasia is divided into different classifications: Voluntary, Involuntary and Non-Voluntary. Voluntary euthanasia is legal in countries like Belgium and the Netherlands, with the patient’s consent. On one side, some supporters argue for an individual’s right to autonomy and a dignified death. On the other hand, the opponents raise concerns about the sanctity of life, the potential for abuse, and the slippery slope towards devaluing human existence. The ethical debate extends to questions of consent, quality of life, and societal implications.

Also Read: Essay on National Science Day for Students in English

Essay on Euthanasia in 350 Words

The term ‘Euthanasia’ was first coined by Sir Francis Bacon, who referred to an easy and painless death, without necessarily implying intentional or assisted actions. In recent years, different countries have come up with different approaches, and legal regulations against euthanasia have been put forward. 

In 2016, the government of India drafted a bill, where euthanasia was categorised as a punishable offence. According to Sections 309 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, any attempt to commit suicide and abetment of suicide is a punishable offence. However, if a person is brain dead, only then he or she can be taken off life support only with the help of family members.

Euthanasia Vs Physician-Assisted Suicide

Euthanasia is the act of intentionally causing the death of a person to relieve their suffering, typically due to a terminal illness or unbearable pain. 

Physician-assisted suicide involves a medical professional providing the means or information necessary for a person to end their own life, typically by prescribing a lethal dose of medication.

In euthanasia, a third party, often a healthcare professional, administers a lethal substance or performs an action directly causing the person’s death.

It is the final decision of the patient that brings out the decision of their death.

Euthanasia Classification

Voluntary Euthanasia

It refers to the situation when the person who is suffering explicitly requests or consents to euthanasia. A patient with a terminal illness may express his or her clear and informed desire to end their life to a medical professional.

Involuntary

It refers to the situation when euthanasia is performed without the explicit consent of the person, often due to the individual being unable to communicate their wishes.

Non-Voluntary

In this situation, euthanasia is performed without the explicit consent of the person, and the person’s wishes are unknown.

Active euthanasia refers to the deliberate action of causing a person’s death, such as administering a lethal dose of medication.

It means allowing a person to die by withholding or withdrawing treatment or life-sustaining measures.

Euthanasia and assisted suicide are a defeat for all. We are called never to abandon those who are suffering, never giving up but caring and loving to restore hope. — Pope Francis (@Pontifex) June 5, 2019

Also Read: Essay on Cleanliness

Is Euthanasia Bad?

Euthanasia is a subjective term and its perspectives vary from person to person. Different cultures, countries and religions have their own set of values and beliefs. Life is sacred and gifted to us by god or nature. Therefore, intentionally causing death goes against moral and religious beliefs. 

However, some people have raised concerns about the potential for a slippery slope, where the acceptance of euthanasia could lead to the devaluation of human life, involuntary euthanasia, or abuse of the practice. Some even argue that euthanasia conflicts with their traditional medical ethics of preserving life and prioritizing the well-being of the patient.

Today, countries like the Netherlands and Belgium have legalised euthanasia. In India, the USA and the UK, it is a punishable offence with varying sentences and fines. Euthanasia is a complex and controversial topic and creating a law against or for it requires a comprehensive study by experts and the opinions of all sections of society. 

Ans: Euthanasia refers to the act of killing a person without any emotions or mercy. Euthanasia is an ethnically complex and controversial topic, with different perspectives and legal regulations on different topics.

Ans: The term ‘Euthanasia’ was first coined by Sir Francis Bacon, who referred to an easy and painless death, without necessarily implying intentional or assisted actions. In recent years, different countries have come up with different approaches, and legal regulations against euthanasia have been put forward.  In 2016, the government of India drafted a bill, where euthanasia was categorised as a punishable offence. According to Sections 309 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, any attempt to commit suicide and abetment of suicide is a punishable offence. However, if a person is brain dead, only then he or she can be taken off life support only with the help of family members.

Ans: Belgium and the Netherlands have legalised euthanasia. However, it is banned in India.

Related Articles

For more information on such interesting topics, visit our essay writing page and follow Leverage Edu.

Shiva Tyagi

With an experience of over a year, I've developed a passion for writing blogs on wide range of topics. I am mostly inspired from topics related to social and environmental fields, where you come up with a positive outcome.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Contact no. *

Connect With Us

30,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today.

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

January 2024

September 2024

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

Have something on your mind?

Make your study abroad dream a reality in January 2022 with

India's Biggest Virtual University Fair

Essex Direct Admission Day

Why attend .

Don't Miss Out

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Assisted Suicide — Euthanasia and Mercy Killing

Euthanasia and Mercy Killing

• Categories: Assisted Suicide

About this sample

Words: 411 |

Published: Dec 12, 2018

Words: 411 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Karlyna PhD

Verified writer

• Expert in: Social Issues

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 560 words

3 pages / 1531 words

3 pages / 1154 words

1 pages / 642 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Assisted Suicide

Euthanasia, a topic fraught with moral and ethical complexity, stands at the intersection of personal autonomy, suffering, compassion, and empathy. In this in-depth exploration, we will delve into the profound moral and ethical [...]

Assisted suicide, also known as physician-assisted death, is a controversial and sensitive topic that has sparked heated debates in the medical, ethical, and legal realms. The practice involves a physician providing a terminally [...]

Euthanasia, the act of intentionally ending a person's life to relieve their suffering, has been a topic of ethical debate for decades. This essay explores the nuanced and multifaceted arguments in favor of euthanasia, delving [...]

Assisted suicide, also known as physician-assisted death or aid in dying, is a highly controversial topic that has sparked heated debates across the globe. It involves a patient with a terminal illness who receives assistance [...]

Relief from pain, and preservation of health and or life is the basic role of medicine and all the technologies associated with it. However, in some instances where the disease is a terminal one with no known cure, pain is the [...]

Today many people have heard of suicide, where one will take their own life when things get to hard to handle and they feel like there is no other way to cope. Not many people today have heard of assisted suicide. Assisted [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

mercy killing

Primary tabs.

A mercy killing is the intentional ending of life of a person who is suffering from a terminal, painful illness. The term–also called  “right to die” –is most often used to describe voluntary euthanasia, though it is also used in reference to non-voluntary euthanasia and involuntary euthanasia.

Voluntary euthanasia is considered either passive or active. Passive voluntary euthanasia is when a person dies after refusing or withdrawing their consent for lifesaving medical intervention. This is legal in many countries, including the United States following  Cruzan v. Missouri Department of Health , where the  Supreme Court  decided that a competent person had “ a constitutionally protected right to refuse lifesaving hydration and nutrion .” Active voluntary euthanasia, on the other hand, generally occurs when a person is administered large doses of painkilling medication. This term includes  assisted suicide , where a patient is provided with the medication to end their own life. The term also includes  physician assisted suicide , where a licensed medical professional administers the medication. Active voluntary euthanasia is legal in  some  countries, to some extent. These countries include  Belgium ,  Canada ,  Colombia ,  Luxembourg ,  the Netherlands ,  Switzerland , and some states in  Australia . In the United States, the Supreme Court refused to recognize active voluntary euthanasia as a Constitutional right in  Washington v. Glucksberg . However,  some states  have recognized a right to active voluntary euthanasia through  death with dignity statutes .  

Non-voluntary euthanasia, on the other hand, involves a patient who is unable to consent to life-ending measures. Involuntary euthanasia involves a patient who does not or resists such measures. Both are illegal in all countries.

[Last updated in June of 2020 by the  Wex Definitions Team ]

• ACADEMIC TOPICS
• law and medicine
• THE LEGAL PROCESS
• criminal law
• wex definitions

Mercy Killing Should Be Encouraged Essay

Introduction, mercy killing, works cited.

My Grandfather had been in the hospital for eight months whereby, visits to the hospital were of the most painful experiences that I have ever had; having known that, he was undergoing extreme mental and physical pain, of which I had little control over. To make it worse, I had painfully watched his health deteriorate day by day, bringing him to a state of hopelessness, with only one primary thing to live and endure; pain. Although we lived with hope, the doctors had made their verdict, because they had done all that was possible with no success. My prayers for his recovery seemed unanswered because; sometimes I could watch him hopelessly as he screamed loudly, due to the extreme pains that he enduring, with no help to offer. In addition, as I watched my grandfather closely, I could confirm that the once enthusiastic face was gradually losing interest in life. This worried me very much, as his ailment had reduced his life into a shell of suffering, making him loose hope and self-esteem. Sometimes the situation was too much for us to bear because, even recognizing his friends, and relatives (including me, his favorite grandson), was a problem. Hence, to end his long-suffering, we had to take the “cruelest” option of terminating his life, it being the only remedy we had. Surely, this was another most painful thing I have had to endure in my life, for I stood there helplessly as the doctor cut off his oxygen supply. As a transition to his new form of life, he struggled and finally stiffened with a weak smile on his face. Although five years have passed since then, the memories are still vivid in me; for I knew and I have always known that we made the right decision for him.

Mercy killing is a mechanism of relieving both the sufferers and their families from extreme pain and anguish; them being witnesses of such suffering (Grisez and Boyle, 509). Frankly speaking, my grandfather was enduring extreme mental and physical pain, which had left him a hopeless being, with one thing to live for; pain. This made me to question the purpose his living because; he was struggling to breathe even with oxygen tubes in his nostrils; hence a clear indication that we were forcing him to live against his wishes. In addition, our forcing him to live is questionable because; for which purpose was he living, when he could not even indentify himself, and had to endure such extreme pains? Considering this, it is not wrong for one to argue that, all we did was for selfish gains; that is, our fear of losing him overlooked the great pain that he was undergoing, as we forced him to continue living; hence, the importance of mercy killing.

Primarily mercy killing or euthanasia involves the ending of someone’s life either willingly or unwillingly. The entire process is painless to sufferers who are in a vegetative state; a case that is common in most medical scenarios, where medics; primarily doctors, have expressed no hopes of recovery of such patients. In addition, doctors mostly perform this operation to patients in extreme pain; hence, a merciful way of ending their anguishes and pain. For medics to carry out mercy operation, they have first to seek consent from such patients; if they are at a position of deciding for themselves, failure of which their relatives’ or close allies’ decisions take precedence.

Owing to the fact that, medics recommend this process to individuals who are experiencing extreme pain and suffering, and because it is not bad for one to endure emotional pain resulting from suffering of their loved ones, it is true that individuals sometimes make this process unnecessarily longer to people whose resting time has come. Therefore, although such individuals will have more time to see their loved ones, this increases the duration of emotional and mental suffering, and the magnitude of pain to sufferers. Further, it is important for all individuals to note that, such practices are not only delusional; hence making individuals to forego important aspects of their lives, but also they have many negative consequences, for example, trauma, family and occupational associated problems (Grisez and Boyle, 511).

To some extent, individuals’ lives can stop due to the failure or unwillingness to execute mercy killing. This is because; although such individuals may be sure that, it is that such suffering-loved ones have minimal chances of living, in most cases, they accept the reality of the situation after the demise of their loved ones, whom they never wanted to die. As the physiological fight or flight theory postulates, the human body has a natural control mechanism; mentally, physically, and emotionally energized; hence, giving individuals a way of dealing or adapting to environmental variations. In any life scenario, a change of environment encompasses change of circumstances in individuals’ lives hence, altering the common used to environments. Failure by individuals to adapt to such changes is a great impediment on individuals’ coping potentialities; hence leading to stress, which may result to dejection. Such scenarios are prevalent in most death-postponed cases, due to the fear of executing the mercy killing concept, despite the fact that, such cases direct individuals’ time and emotional resources towards a fruitless cause. In addition, the more individuals endeavor to cherish memories of their dead loved ones, the more their desperation worsens hence, leading to many negative impacts on individuals’ lives, more so the suffering. For example, for the suffering, such effects can commence with simple breathing problems, which becomes complex later on. Although medics always do anything at their disposal to save lives for instance, feeding of patients through the nostrils, whose failure leads to use of the most expensive pure oxygen, they fail to realize that, they are wasting resources on lives they are very sure they cannot save. On the other hand, analysis of the hospital environments, which includes an array of foot and air tubes and other patient supporting machinery, are clear evidences of holding on to a life that is desperate to rest. This fact is compounded by the expensiveness of the process not only to the suffering, but also to the supporting families hence, doing more damage than good (Heifetz and Mangel, 197)

Yes, to some extent the argument against mercy killing that, this process terminates one’s life, something that only God should do is right however, their notion lacks a base of expression. This is because; avoiding the practice primarily means that, individuals must use any artificial means to preserve life, a life that should rest naturally. Therefore, this causes one question; why should individuals aim to prolong life; something, which they lack control on? No wonder, such efforts are always fruitless, and only lead to desolation, disappointments, loss resources, and suffering. This is the case because, death is not a clinical thing, but rather a natural process (Manning, 99)

On the other hand, considering the fact that, most suffering individuals have to endure extreme pain, with surety of death in the end, majority of such individuals “die” even before their natural deaths. Therefore, mercy killing never denies somebody life, but rather the problem is these individuals’ inability to accept reality. In addition, considering the quantity of resources wasted in sustain such patients, it practically beats logic, because such families can use such resources on constructive things; primarily because, there is no need of family accumulating debts in the name of saving an un-savable life. In this regard, it is important for individuals to note that, life never lasts forever; hence, the importance of cherishing every day and concentrating in saving savable lives for example, through resuscitation; a fact that mercy killing supports (Manning, 101)

Another argument against Mercy Killing, which is refutable, is that, majority of individuals use Mercy killing as a mechanism of eliminating family members they do not cherish. This lacks some concepts of logicalness; hence, individuals cannot apply it as a rationale to oppose this practice. This is because; egocentrism is generally individualistic, a fact that mercy killing never encompasses. In addition, mercy killing is a practice done out of love and care for loved ones as mechanism of ending their suffering. On the other hand, it is important to note that, majority of individuals who prefer this practice value their loved ones to whatever they own; hence, through saying that they should use that money to prolong life is wrong, because, such prolonging is of more harm than good. This is common in life, because such efforts are always fruitless and more painful than mercy killing. Considering this, antagonists of this concept are selfish, because they are prolonging suffering of individuals; they claim to love (Jenkins, 195)

In conclusion, mercy killing is one of the most controversial concepts in nature. Although some individuals oppose the concept, most of them fail to recognize a few realties about it namely; medics execute the process in extreme suffering situations, where the hopes or recovery never exists. In addition, postponing one’s life wastes time, money, and it has other negative impacts to both the suffering individuals and their remaining families; which include depression, trauma, family and occupational problems. On the other hand, although the concept elicits many moral issues, it practically beats logic to preserve moral egos, rather than embracing reality. This is because, man has no power of prolonging life, but rather, avoiding mercy killing will imply that, individual love seeing others suffer.

Grisez, Germain, and Boyle, Joseph. Life and death with liberty and justice: a contribution to the euthanasia debate. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1979.Print.

Heifetz, Milton and Mangel, Charles. The Right to Die. Toronto: Longman Canada Limited, 1975.Print.

Jenkins, Joe. Contemporary moral issues; Examining Religions Series, (4 th e.d.). Portsmouth: Heinemann Educational Publishers, 2002.print

Manning, Michael. Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: killing or caring? Macarthur Boulevard, New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1998.Print.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, March 13). Mercy Killing Should Be Encouraged. https://ivypanda.com/essays/mercy-killing-should-be-encouraged/

"Mercy Killing Should Be Encouraged." IvyPanda , 13 Mar. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/mercy-killing-should-be-encouraged/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'Mercy Killing Should Be Encouraged'. 13 March.

IvyPanda . 2022. "Mercy Killing Should Be Encouraged." March 13, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/mercy-killing-should-be-encouraged/.

1. IvyPanda . "Mercy Killing Should Be Encouraged." March 13, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/mercy-killing-should-be-encouraged/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Mercy Killing Should Be Encouraged." March 13, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/mercy-killing-should-be-encouraged/.

• Euthanasia (Mercy Killing)
• Domestic Violence and Its Classification
• Mercy Medical Center Overview
• Problem of Death and Bereavement: Case Studies
• Active Euthanasia: Ethical Dilema
• Euthanasia: Advantages and Disadvantages
• Inequalities in Health Care Services for Children
• Euthanasia: Every For and Against

Sensitive Topics: How to Write a Mercy Killing Essay

Don’t Forget to Study a Sample Argumentative Euthanasia Essay

If you have no idea how to approach the topic, you may try and find some examples on the Internet. Although it will be a really bad decision to copy/paste any of them and try to pass it for your own writing, reading one may provide you with the much necessary insight and help you get to grips with the issue. If you have a strong opinion on the subject, you should probably look for an example of argumentative essay that promotes another point of view – when you see how wrong the author is and in what respects, it will be easier for you to build up your own argumentation.

Your Own Take on Mercy Killing Essay

There are a lot of possible approaches you may use when dealing with the topic of euthanasia. But whatever opinion you share, don’t forget that you shouldn’t found your essay on emotions, no matter how much this particular topic asks for it. What you need is real argumentation, supported with facts, statistics, examples from real life and so on. For example, if you support euthanasia, you may mention the number of patients slowly dying of incurable diseases with no hope for recovery who could be otherwise spared the pain and indignity of their position if they were allowed to die. If you are against it, you may mention the examples of people waking up from coma long after the doctors had given up on them and told their loved ones that they may just as well pull the plug on them. Study a sample argumentative essay on the topic and think about the arguments presented by another person – maybe you can disprove them? As you may see, the possibilities are boundless, especially if you have a strong opinion on the subject in question.

Our statistics

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Iran J Public Health
• v.43(10); 2014 Oct

Euthanasia: Murder or Not: A Comparative Approach

Background Euthanasia is one of the most intriguing ethical, medical and law issues that marked whole XX century and beginning of the XXI century, sharply dividing scientific and unscientific public to its supporters and opponents. It also appears as one of the points where all three major religions (Catholic, Orthodox, and Islamic) have the same view. They are strongly against legalizing mercy killing, emphasizing the holiness of life as a primary criterion by which the countries should start in their considerations. Studying criminal justice systems in the world, the authors concluded that the issue of deprivation of life from compassion is solved on three ways. On the first place, we have countries where euthanasia is murder like any other murder from the criminal codes. Second, the most numerous are states where euthanasia is murder committed under privilege circumstances. On the third place, in the Western Europe we have countries where euthanasia is a legal medical procedure, under requirements prescribed by the law. In this paper, authors have made a brief comparison of the solutions that exist in some Islamic countries, where euthanasia is a murder, with Western countries, where it represents completely decriminalized medical procedure.

Introduction

Euthanasia, i.e. mercy killing is both historical and contemporary problem of medicine, law, ethics and religion, which is reflected in the multitude of interwoven concepts and different legislative solutions of that question all over the world. The debate over legalizing euthanasia is like earthquake ( 1 – 4 ), sharply divides the scientific and unscientific public on its supporters and opponents, and although through literature pervades the opinion that this topic has been exhausted ( 5 ). In the maelstrom of issues that this topic opens, legislators all around the world try to find a practical solution, in order to resolve adequately the question of euthanasia. The line that separates admissible from impermissible merciful deprivation of life through the centuries has consistently been moved: in the direction of legalization of euthanasia and towards the complete ban of euthanasia. Globally, there are three main ways of regulation of mercy killing. One group of countries equates it with ordinary murder, while the second group represents the view that the euthanasia is privileged murder. Finally, in the third group euthanasia is decriminalized upon fulfillment of prescribed conditions. In Islamic countries, euthanasia is prohibited, both in the East ( 6 ) and in the Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is seen as non-Islamic ( 7 ) and it is equalized to the murder. Accordingly, in the countries where euthanasia is legally punishable, sentences vary from very lenient to the death penalty, as was the case in the Islamic countries ( 8 ).

Since the debate over the legalization of active euthanasia does not subside for many years, its supporters and opponents have created strong organizations that represent their beliefs about the (im) morality and (in) feasibility of the same. The focus of the problem lies in the question what extent is necessary to respect the life of terminally ill patients, and accordingly provide strong arguments. In other words, the question is whether in addition to the right on life, as a fundamental human right guaranteed by the European Convention of Human Rights and Liberties, there is a right to die, established through the right to self-determination. Thus, opponents of legalization of active euthanasia, as primary argument, emphasize the holiness of life at all costs (which is supported primarily with arguments in Islamic and Christian religion, which prohibit any form of suicide) ( 7 , 9 ), while its supporters believe that the moral obligation of doctors is to end the life of terminally ill patient who is suffering, but they also highlight the strong individual autonomy in the matters of life and death. In short, both supporters and opponents summarize most of their arguments on the concept of respect for the patient, where they allocate four forms: a concern for the welfare for the patient, respect his wishes, respect for fundamental values of life and respects for the interests of the patient ( 10 ). Therefore, inter alia, any discussion of euthanasia leads to objections based on religious grounds. Secular arguments are rejected, because they “do not consider the crucial importance of having God as the creator of entire universe and human beings” ( 11 ). This religious opposition to euthanasia is based on the claim that only someone who is not religious can consider euthanasia as one of the options in the life, but it cannot be for the people who have a religious orientation. In accordance with beliefs that prevail in some countries, their legislators resolve the issue of euthanasia in accordance with those beliefs, and some solutions will be discussed below. Among the reasons that explain the different treatment of euthanasia between countries, according to some authors, doctors often have a limited experience in this field, because they are not faced with such health condition of the patients ( 12 ). This statement is correct. For example, physicians in Bosnia and Herzegovina do not have any experience with euthanasia.

Euthanasia as murder

In the world were crystallized three approaches in the legislative regulations of this matter, and we will briefly point out the solutions in some jurisdictions. Due to the volume of work, we will explain the legislations in which euthanasia is equated with murder, as well as legislations that represent quite the opposite solution.

First, in all Islamic countries, in accordance with religious beliefs, direct euthanasia is prohibited and is equated with the murder. Iran is no exception. In Iranian law, euthanasia is not explicitly mentioned in the legal texts, but there are some exceptions that lead to a more lenient punishment in some murder cases. However, the euthanasia is a murder with intent, and comes from a religious doctrine of Muslims. One study conducted among 55 physician shows that 98% of them think that euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide is a violation of human dignity, and they would not be willing to provide those ( 13 ). Because of the above, there are still no attempts for broader interventions for legalizing mercy killing ( 14 ). A recent survey in Turkey showed that 78% of patients and 63% of physician take a view that at least one form of euthanasia should exist (in this, it is pointed out that there are not significant differences between gender, marital status, education level and age of the patients with attitude about euthanasia) ( 15 ).

Such line of regulation of this sensitive matter kept the legislator in the Bosnia and Herzegovina, which has four similar criminal regulations, because this country has four legislations (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republic of Serbs, and Brcko District). First, in BiH, which is considered as a frontier between the Christian and Muslim Europe, live three ethnic groups (Muslim 40%, 32% Serbs and Croats 8%) ( 16 ). These parts of the Bosnia do not have a same approach to the regulation of euthanasia, although at first glance it could be said that there is no difference in these criminal laws. It is a specific country, consisting of two entities (Federation Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Republic of Serbs), and the Brcko District. All three parts have their own legislation. For some considerations it is important to note that on this territory are valid three criminal codes: Criminal Code of Federation Bosnia and Herzegovina (further: CC FBH), Criminal Code of Brcko District (further: CC BD), and Criminal Code Republic of Serbs (further: CC RS).

In this part of the state applies a solution, which is defined as a crime deprivation of life another person’s life, punishable by prison sentence of at least five years. The legislator makes a difference between this, ordinary murder, and the first degree murder which includes causing a death of another person in a cruel or insidious way; by reckless and violent behavior; on racial, national or religious reasons; for gain, to commit or conceal another serious crime; from ruthless revenge or other base motives; and the murder of official or military personnel in the performance of duties of security or the duty to maintain public order, arrest the perpetrator of the crime or guarding a person deprived o liberty (article 166. CC FBH). Almost identical provision is contained in the CC BD, which in the addition has a hate murder (article 163. CC BD). In addition to these two forms of murder, these laws recognize a provoked murder, manslaughter, murder of a child at birth, incitement to suicide and assisted suicide, and unlawful termination of pregnancy. Therefore, all those deprivations of life, which does not fall within in these specially defined, fall under ordinary murder. In this way, they observe euthanasia. In the part of country where live people of Islamic faith mercy killing is equated with the ordinary murder, while the legislator in the RS considers euthanasia as murder committed under mitigating circumstances. According to it, who deprive another person of life shall be punished with imprisonment at least five years (maximum is twenty-five years of imprisonment), but if the crime is committed under mitigating circumstances, the offender shall be punished with imprisonment from one to eight years (article 148. CC RS). It follows that the criminal laws of the FBH and BD are inspired by the group of legislations that do not privilege a mercy murder, believing that compassion for poor condition of the murdered is not a separate basis for a more lenient punishment. On the other hand, the legislator in RS is in the group that has a benevolent view on this issue.

Mercy killing in the Republic of Serbs from other forms of murder differs by motive of the execution, which by its nature is altruistic, because its goal is mitigating the pain and suffering of the victim/patient ( 17 , 18 ). In the theory it is adopted an attitude that particularly mitigating circumstances occur circumstances in rare and specific situations. These circumstances legally and/or ethically fully justify particular murder or merely justify that the perpetrator could not otherwise act except to deprive a life of another human ( 19 ).

However, it should be noted that the sharp equalization of these two types of murders is not desirable, because there are different reasons that lead to negative consequences ( 20 ). View of euthanasia as a simple murder took the English legislator, where it resulted in the emergence of the death tourism , the phenomena where English inhabitants travel to Switzerland in the special hospitals and institutions to be euthanized ( 21 ). At the end of these considerations, we could mention that in the United States euthanasia is also prohibited and equalized with murder. However, four states (Oregon, Washington, Montana and Quebec) through court’s precedents decriminalized physician assisted suicide, as a procedure that is very similar to the euthanasia ( 22 ).

Euthanasia in Netherlands

The first associations about the Netherlands for many years have been related to the beautiful canals, parks, windmills, rich museums, and unique architecture. Today, this country is particularly known for two things: decriminalization of enjoyment and distribution of light drugs and legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide ( 21 ). The first known case of euthanasia in the Netherlands dates back to the early fifties of the last century, when the physician performed euthanasia against his own brother, who was in terminal stage of the disease and that caused a lot of pain, so he repeatedly asked his brother to take his life ( 23 ). However, this case had not attracted the attention of the public, unlike the case Postma in 1973, when the doctor was prosecuted because she injected a le thal dose of morphine to her mother, who had very poor health, but did not fatally diseased. In this highly emotional case, the court sentenced a doctor to one-year suspended sentence, but to whom execution is not occurred ( 23 , 24 ). This was followed by cases Amsterdam in 1977, Rotterdam in 1981 and Alkmaar in 1982.

The rapid increase of number of performed euthanasia has led to questioning of its legalization, mainly thanks to the activities of the Dutch Voluntary Euthanasia Society ( Nederlands Vereniging voor Vrijwillige Euthanasie (NVEEJ). The Dutch parliament in the winter of 1993 reached a compromise between the two opposing concepts in the issue of euthanasia ( 24 ). The parliament enacted the law that represents, generally speaking, a sort of codification of rules and procedures under which euthanasia is performed approximately three decades prior the enactment of the law. It is the most liberal law that regulates this matter in Europe. These standards and procedures are applied in medical practice and the practice of courts prosecuting crimes for deprivation of life from grace, and there is no extensive theoretical and legal doctrine on this issue, offering guidance in understanding the act of euthanasia ( 25 , 26 ). Therefore, the law is only the “tip of the iceberg” ( 27 ).

The Netherlands prescribed the liberal conditions necessary for the execution of euthanasia. First, it should be noted that the Law on the termination of life does not contain the term euthanasia , but uses the term termination of life on demand , without giving its definition, although the guidelines in the ‘80 of the XX century used the term euthanasia ( 28 ). According to the law, euthanasia is permitted upon meeting of the following requirements:

• The request originates from the patient, and is given free and voluntary;
• The patient suffers intolerable pain, which cannot be facilitated:
• Patient is aware of his medical condition and perspectives;
• Euthanasia is last sanctuary for patients, because there are no other alternative;
• The doctor, who has to perform an euthanasia, consulted a colleague who has experience in this field, and which has examined a patient and agreed that all conditions are met for euthanasia or assisted suicide, and
• Euthanasia or assisted suicide is performed with the necessary care ( 25 ).

Therefore, the physician who performs euthanasia will be protected from prosecution only if he meets all substantive and procedural requirements ( 29 ). That is why euthanasia is subject of control. In order to get the information whether they committed a crime, doctors sometimes have to wait a period of eight months from performed euthanasia ( 30 ). In fact, after the euthanasia doctor has an obligation to fill out the appropriate protocol and inform about euthanasia the municipal pathologist, by filling out the appropriate form and attaching all necessary documents ( 31 ).

Although at one point in this country a question of the existence of culture of death was raised, which was caused by number of early deaths of patients, the Royal Dutch Medical Association ( Koninklijke Nederlandsche tot beverdering der Geneeskunst (KNMG) ), recently, inter alia, reiterated that the law on termination of life must be an exception, not the rule, and that this procedure will never become a standard ( 32 ), although a number of doctors do not consider euthanasia as a exceptional measure, which would require the exercise of social control of it ( 33 ). However, the studies show that in the Netherlands euthanasia is more accepted way of completion of life. Compared to 1975, when 52, 6% of the population supported this form of deprivation of life; in 1988 this percentage was 88%. The fact that is especially interesting, if we consider that, the Catholic Church is strongly against euthanasia, is that the 74% of the Roman Catholic religion support euthanasia ( 29 ). Proponents of this form of deprivation of life find that the key determinant in this process should be self-determination, because respect of life includes the avoidance of undignified death ( 34 ). In addition, legal and medical theory state that patients are not afraid of euthanasia, but their biggest fear is that their request for euthanasia will be denied ( 35 ).

With regard to the statistics of euthanasia, we can note that there are significant differences in relation to the different years of observation. Thus, in 2001, in the Netherlands were 3,500 cases of euthanasia, while in the 2005 there were 2,297 of performed euthanasia, which represent 1, 7% of all deaths in the country ( 33 ). However, in the 2010 there were 2, 910 recorded cases of euthanasia, 182 cases of assisted suicide and 44 cases with elements of both kinds of these deprivation of life, representing 2, 3% of total deaths ( 36 ). In the following year, there were 3,695 notifications, which represent a significant increase in the number of deaths in this way, compared with the previous year ( 37 ). The main reason in all observed periods that led the patients on this step was existence of cancer. However, it is important to mention the fact that in each of the analyzed years there are several cases where the doctor did not comply with the rules of procedure. For example, in 2011 are recorded four such cases ( 37 ). In contrast to this fact, the prosecutions are rare. For instance, between 1981 and 1997 there were prosecuted only 20 doctors, of whom nine were convicted, but on the symbolic sentence (six to the suspended sentence and three on fines) ( 23 ). Then, based on the above, we should point out that in the Dutch professional public there are perceptions that the cases of euthanasia in fact do not exist. Reason for this opinion is that most of the cases are related with patients who are terminally ill (cancer), who have greatly suffered and received massive doses of medicaments ( 35 ).

Euthanasia in Belgium

The idea of legalizing euthanasia in Belgium emerged at the beginning of the 80s of the XX century, in the action of two associations for the right to die with dignity. However, unlike Netherlands, Belgium did not have a long history of performing euthanasia and prosecuting doctors, and it could not establish appropriate guidelines and led the legislator to the faster reaction. In the same time, that does not mean that there were doctors who practiced in the shadows and supported the idea of euthanasia ( 34 ). According to some studies, those were conducted in the late 90s of the last century, approximately 5% in Flanders of the total numbers of deaths accounted for euthanasia, i.e. on the use of drugs for the purpose of shortening of patient’s life. Special attention was aroused by a fact that the 3, 2% to 3, 8% of the deprivation of life was without explicit request of the patient ( 38 ).

Euthanasia law was enacted on 16 May 2002. In Belgium, before the enactment of the law, there were no guidelines or case law regarding to mercy killing. Therefore, Belgian law is much more detailed than Dutch law, which was more a result of some sort of codification of regulations ( 27 ). For these reasons, the Belgian legislator issued detailed provisions, in order to provide a greater level of protection and security to doctors and patients ( 39 ).

Characteristic of this law is that legislator in the title as well as in the text, uses a term euthanasia , which is defined as intentionally taking the life of another person upon his request. The definition, as a term, from one side, is taken from the Dutch law and theory; while on the other hand, the current Dutch law does use neither the term nor the definition. At this point, it is necessary to draw attention to the fact that the Belgian euthanasia law does not specifically regulate assisted suicide, and the reason for that can be found in the fact that it has never been a social need to regulate assisted suicide as a separate crime, and the difference between it and mercy killing is minimal. Therefore, regulation of assisted suicide in this law was superfluous — such as excessive mention that physicians has to take this procedure with due care and attention ( 40 ).

The requirements upon which the act of euthanasia will not constitute a criminal offence are set in almost the same way as in the Dutch legislation. Before conducting the deprivation of patient’s life, a physician has to inform the patient about his health and life expectations, to discuss with him about the request for euthanasia and about the options for palliative care, as well as the consequences of the decision. The patient and doctor have to work together and conclude that there is no reasonable alternative for the patient’s situation, and that his request was made voluntary. Then, the doctor must be convinced in the patient’s permanent physical and/or mental suffering, and to the fact that the request was made permanent. To be sure, the physician needs to do more interviews with the patient, but spread over a longer period, in order to follow better the development of state of his mind. The physician also has to consult another doctor about the condition of the patient, and to inform him of the request for euthanasia. Another doctor will review medical records and talk with the patient. He has to be sure in patient’s suffering that cannot be mitigated. His findings should be documented. He has to be completely independent from the patient and the acting physician as well, and must be competent to give an opinion on the disease in question, which will inform a patient. The next requirement is related with medical stuff, first, with nurses. Namely, if the concern about patient was engaged those who had a constant contact with the patient, the doctor needs to talk with them about the request for mercy killing ( 40 , 41 ).

The number of performed euthanasia in Belgium slightly increased after legalization, and raised the question of whether the deprivation of life of grace is normal medical practice or not. According to the Report from 2004, in 2003 259 merciful deprivation of life from mercy was conducted, which is average about 17 euthanasia per month, i.e., 0, 2% of total number of deaths in this country. The largest number of patients as a reason for that act noted various incurable kinds of cancer, and about 60% of them asked to perform euthanasia in hospital. In 2004 and 2005 there were performed 742 legal euthanasia (that was 0, 36% of total number of deaths) ( 42 ). Of these, 77% of the patients were aged between 40 and 79 years old, and from the total number of euthanasia deaths, 83% of patients suffered from cancer ( 43 ). However, the number of performed euthanasia has grown rapidly over the coming years, so in 2008 about 500 euthanasia was reported (which is slightly less than the previous year, when they reported 924 deaths), and in 2009 there were 1.526 euthanasia deaths, which is 0, 7% of total number of deaths. In approximately 80% of cases, the reason for requiring mercy killing was a cancer ( 40 ). According to the Report from 2012 (which refers to the period 2010-2011 year), the reason for euthanasia was cancer in 75% cases ( 44 ).

Euthanasia in Luxembourg

Luxembourg is the third country in Europe which legalized euthanasia, and which legislator brought euthanasia and assisted suicide law on 20 February 2008, and which entered into a force on 16 May 2009 year ( 45 ). Compared to the last two described laws, this law is similar, but not identical with them. The conditions for this procedure are set more or less on the same way. As far as the kinds of suffering that patient have to endure, Luxembourg’s legislator adopted the solution from the Belgian law, and allows mercy killing in the case of psychical pain. An important difference with the previously described legislations lies in the fact that physician has to seek prior approval from the National Council in order to perform a euthanasia ( 31 ).

Deprivation of life from compassion throughout the history of humanity appears as a question that engrosses the attention of lawyers, doctors, sociologists around the worlds. In certain stages of development of civilization it represented a permitted form of depriving another person’s life, while in the other stages was strictly prohibited. Today’s legislators basically occupying three positions, so, they prohibit euthanasia and equate it with ordinary or privilege murder, or allow it under the assumption of meeting of prescribed requirements. Bypassing the countries that privilege euthanasia as less serious murder, in this paper we have dealt with some legislations that this phenomenon strictly prohibit, and those that deprivation of life out of compassion treat as a permitted medical procedure. In Islamic countries, such as Iran, Turkey and part of Bosnia and Herzegovina, euthanasia is an ordinary murder, punishable by serious criminal sanctions. At the opposite pole are the Western European countries, more specifically, the Benelux countries (Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg), in which deprivation of life from the grace does not constitute a crime, if it was carried out in accordance with the clearly defined legal rules and medical procedure. In this way, we show how a life situation may be in different legal areas regulated in completely different way. Exactly this lack of harmony in the legislative solution in some European and American countries has led to the some adverse events, such as death tourism , as a phenomenon where inhabitants of one country, where euthanasia is prohibited, travel to another state where it is allowed, and where physicians can perform euthanasia. In order to avoid this, it is necessary to achieve a certain degree of harmonization of legislations, or to set appropriate limit in the legislations that legalized euthanasia. However, how it is possible to achieve, time will show.

Ethical considerations

Ethical issues (Including plagiarism, Informed Consent, misconduct, data fabrication and/or falsification, double publication and/or submission, redundancy, etc) have been completely observed by the authors.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by Faculty of Law, University of Kragujevac. The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

• McCall S (1999). Euthanasia: The strengths of the middle ground . Med Law Rev , 7 ( 2 ): 194–207. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pereira J (2012). Legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide: the illusion of safeguards and controls . Current Oncology , 18 ( 2 ): 38–45. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Downie J, Chambaere K, Bernheim JL (2012). Pereira`s attack on legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide: smoke and mirrors . Current Oncology , 19 ( 3 ): 133–138. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pereira J (2012). Casting stones and casting aspersions: let`s not lose sight of the main issues in the euthanasia debate . Current Oncology , 19 ( 3 ): 139–142. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Williams G (1969). Euthanasialegislation: A rejoinder to the non-religious objections . In: Euthanasia and the Right to Death: the Case for Voluntary Euthanasia . Ed. Downing A., London, pp. 134–147. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sajid A (2003). Death and Bereavement in Islam . Available from: https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/11550914/death-and-bereavement-in-islam-muslim-council-of-britain . [ Google Scholar ]
• Aramesh K, Shadi H (2007). Euthanasia: An Islamic Ethical Perspective . Iran J Allergy Asthma Immunol , 6 ( 5 ): 35–38. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ebrahim AM (2007). Euthanasia (Qatl al-rahma) . JIMA , 39 : 173–178. [ Google Scholar ]
• Haseeb Ansari A, Sambo AO, Abdulkadir AB (2012). The Right to Die Via Euthanasia: An Expository Study of the Shari’ah and Laws in Selected Jurisdictions . Advances in Natural and Applied Sciences , 6 ( 5 ): 673–681. [ Google Scholar ]
• Harris J (1995). Euthanasia and the value of life . In: Euthanasia Examined – ethical, clinical and legal perspectives . Ed. Keown J, Cambridge, pp. 6–22. [ Google Scholar ]
• Klajn-Tatić V (2005). Religiousviewson active euthanasia . Strani pravni život , 3 : 171–177. (Serbian). [ Google Scholar ]
• Berghmans T, Lossignol D (2012). Euthanasia: from ethical debate to clinical reality . Eur Respir J , 40 ( 4 ): 804–805. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Karami K, Maria C, Nasibeh K (2012). Physicians’ attitude about euthanasia and assisted suicide . Int J Med Med Sci , 4 ( 6 ): 138–141. [ Google Scholar ]
• Noori F (2014). Euthanasia in Iranian Criminal System . Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology , 7 ( 11 ): 2182–2184. [ Google Scholar ]
• Taghadosi nejad F, Okazi A, Maghareh zade Esfehani M, Yousefi Nejad V (2014). Comparison of Attitude of Physicians and Patients about Euthanasia in Tehran’s University of Medical Sciences Hospitals in 2012–2013 . SJFM . 20 ( 4 and 1 ): 377–384. [ Google Scholar ]
• Frucht R (2000), Encyclopedia of Eastern Europe: From the Congress of Vienna to the fall of Communism . New York & London: Garland Publishing. [ Google Scholar ]
• Babić M, Marković I (1997). Krivičnopravna zaštita ljudskog života . Banja Luka: Faculty of Law, University of Banja Luka, Bosnia and Herzegovina.(Bosnian) [ Google Scholar ]
• Jotanović R (2010). Right to life and/or right to death in the context of euthanasia . Pravna riječ , 7 ( 24 ): 179–192. (Serbian) [ Google Scholar ]
• Babić M (1997). Right to life and privileged murders . Pravni Život , 46 ( 9 ): 83–98. (Serbian) [ Google Scholar ]
• Turanjanin V (2012). Moral inadmissibility differentiation of active and passive euthanasia . Pravni Život , 61 ( 9 ): 509–522. (Serbian) [ Google Scholar ]
• Turanjanin V (2013). The origins and possibilities of development of ‘death tourism’ in Western Europe . In: Service Law . Ed. Mićović M. Faculty of Law, University of Kragujevac, Serbia, pp. 787–803. (Serbian) [ Google Scholar ]
• Turanjanin V (2012). Positive legal regulation of some specific medical service in the United States – physician assisted suicide . In: XXI century – Century of Services and Service Law . Ed. Mićović M. Faculty of Law, University of Kragujevac, Serbia, pp. 349–362. (Serbian) [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen-Almagor R (2001). Euthanasia in the Netherlands: the Legal Framework . MSU-DCL J Int Law , 10 : 319–342. [ Google Scholar ]
• Belian J (1996). Deference to Doctors in Dutch Euthanasia Law . Emory International Law Review , 10 : 255–296. [ Google Scholar ]
• Keown J (2004). Euthanasia, Ethics and Public Policy . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dunsmuir M, Smith M, Alter S (1998). Euthanasia and assisted suicide . Available from: http://publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/CIR/919-e.htm .
• Nys H (2002). Euthanasia in the Low Countries – A comparative analysis of the law regarding euthanasia in Belgium and Netherlands . Ethical Perspectives , 9 (2–3): 73–85. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Groenhuijsen M (2007). Euthanasia and the Criminal Justice System . Electronic Journal of Comparative Law , 11 3 : 1–25. [ Google Scholar ]
• Leenen HJJ (2001). The Development of Euthanasia in the Netherlands . Eur J Health Law , 8 ( 2 ): 125–134. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sheldon T (2011). Dutch doctors complain about long wait for judgments in cases of euthanasia . BMJ . Available from: http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d5768 . [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Turanjanin V (2012). Mercy killing and assisted suicide – insight on the solutions in law in countries which decriminalized them . Herald of Law , 3 ( 2 ): 15–36. (Serbian) [ Google Scholar ]
• Shariff MJ (2012). Assisted death and the slippery slope – finding clarity amid advocacy, convergence, and complexity . Current Oncology , 19 ( 3 ): 143–154. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen-Alamgor R (2009). Critical Remarks on the Dutch Policy and Practice of Euthanasia and Proposed Guidelines for Physician-Assisted Suicide . In: From New Medical Ethics to Integrative Bioethics . Ed. Čović A., Gosić N., Tomačević L., Zagreb, pp. 197–216.
• Shariff M (2011). „A Perfection of Means, and Confusion of Aims”: Finding the Essence of Autonomy in Assisted Death Laws . Health Law Can , 31 ( 4 ): 81–148. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen-Alamgor R (2003). Non-Voluntary and Involuntary Euthanasia in Netherlands: Dutch Perspectives . Issues in Law and Medicine , 18 ( 3 ): 239–257. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Regional euthanasia review committees, Annual report (2010). Available from: http://www.euthanasiecommissie.nl/Images/JV%20RTE%202010%20ENGELS%20%28EU12.01%29_tcm52–30364.pdf .
• Regional euthanasia review committees, Annual report (2011). Available from: http://www.euthanasiecommissie.nl/Images/RTE.JV2011.ENGELS.DEF_tcm52–33587.PDF .
• Cohen-Almagor R (2009). Belgian euthanasia law: a critical analysis . J Med Ethics , 35 ( 7 ): 436–439. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Srinivas R (2009). Exploring the Potential for American Death Tourism . MSU Journal of Medicine and Law , 13 ( 1 ): 91–122. [ Google Scholar ]
• Turanjanin V (2013). Death with dignity in Belgium . In: XXI century – Century of Services and Service Law . Ed. Mićović M. Faculty of Law, University of Kragujevac, Serbia, pp. 223–237. (Serbian) [ Google Scholar ]
• The Belgianlaw of May 28 , 2002.
• White H (2012). Over 30% of Euthanasia Cases in Belgian Region Did Not Give Consent: Study . Available from: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/over-30-of-euthanasia-cases-in-belgian-region-did-not-give-consent-study .
• Cohen-Almagor R (2009). Euthanasia Policy and Practice in Belgium: Critical Observations and Suggestions for Improvement , Issues in Law & Medicine , 24 ( 3 ): 187–220. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Commission fédérale de contrôle et d’évaluation de l’euthanasie (2012). Cinquième rapport aux chambres législatives . Available from: http://www.health.belgium.be/filestore/19078961_FR/Rapport%202012%20fr.pdf .
• Legislation reglementant les soins palliatifs ainsi que l`euthanasie et l`assistance au suicide, Memorial Journal Officiel de Grand-Duche de Luxembourg, Recueil de legislation , 16 mars 2009. [ Google Scholar ]

Essay: The Quality of Mercy Killing

• StumbleUpon
• Del.i.cious

Want the full story?

Learn more about the benefits of being a TIME subscriber

If you are already a subscriber sign up — registration is free!

Sign In adFactory.getCmAd(142, 70, "upgradetop", "text").write();

If you check the "Remember me" box, you will be automatically signed in for 30 days to TIME.com when you visit in the future.

If you are accessing TIME.com on a public computer, you are advised not to click on the "Remember me" option.

For more information, please visit TIME's Privacy Policy

• IAS Preparation
• UPSC Preparation Strategy
• Euthanasia Or Mercy Killing

Euthanasia or Mercy Killing- Moral Dilemma!

Euthanasia refers to the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering. It is categorized as voluntary, non-voluntary and involuntary. Euthanasia can be further classified into active or passive ones. Active euthanasia is an intentional act to deliberately kill a terminally ill patient using various means whereas passive euthanasia happens when medical treatment is removed purposefully resulting in a person’s death to relieve him from unending pain. Until now euthanasia is not legalized in India.

Why in news-

• In 2016 Government proposed a draft bill on passive euthanasia for the first time called “The Medical Treatment of Terminally Ill Patients (Protection of Patients and Medical Practitioners) Bill”.
• Time and again widely debated across the media after the supreme court verdict on the Aruna Shanbaug case.

  Aspirants would find this article very helpful while preparing for the  UPSC 2022 .

What is Euthanasia?

The phrase “euthanasia” was coined by Sir Francis Bacon. It is also called as ‘mercy killing’ . The term “Euthanasia” has been derived from the two Greek words ‘eu’ and ‘thanotos’, which literally means ‘good death’.

Euthanasia is the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve  pain  and  suffering (provided motive should be good & death must be painless as much as possible)                                                       or

 “A deliberate intervention was undertaken with the express intention of ending a life, to relieve intractable suffering.” – British House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics.

Broad classification-

• Voluntary Euthanasia  (with patients’ consent ) – euthanasia is performed with the patients consent. It is legal in some countries like Belgium, Netherlands, etc.
• Non-voluntary Euthanasia  (patient’s consent unavailable) –  where a person is unable to give their consent (for example –the patient is in a state of coma or are severely brain-damaged) and another person takes the decision on their behalf, often because the ill person had expressed a wish previously to end their life in such circumstances.
• Involuntary Euthanasia  (without asking consent or against the patient’s will) – Euthanasia conducted against the will of the patient is termed involuntary euthanasia. It is also regarded as murder.

         All types of euthanasia can be further divided into passive or active types-

a) Active Euthanasia – where a person intentionally intervenes to end someone’s life with the use of lethal substances or forces.

              For example- Administering a lethal injection to end life.

b) Passive Euthanasia –  where a person causes death by withholding or withdrawing treatment that is essential to maintain life.

             For example- stoppage of antibiotics treatment in certain cases where it is necessary for the continuance of life, removal of life support system, etc

Debate- moral dilemma

Arguments For Euthanasia- According to euthanasia opponent Ezekiel Emanuel , proponents of euthanasia have presented four main arguments:

a) That people have a right to self-determination, and thus should be allowed to choose their own destiny.

b) Assisting a subject to die is a better option than continuing to suffer.

c) The distinction between passive euthanasia( which is frequently allowed) and active euthanasia is not substantive (the underlying principle–the doctrine of double effect is unreasonable) and

d) Allowing euthanasia will not necessarily lead to unacceptable consequences. Pro-euthanasia activists often take examples of countries like the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, etc. where euthanasia has been legalized to justify that it is mostly trouble-free.

Check the relevant links to prepare for the UPSC exam even better –

Other arguments-

Arguments based on rights

• People got an explicit right to die
• Death is a private subject and if there is no harm done to others then, the state and other people have no right to interfere (libertarian case)

Practical arguments –

• Death is a private subject and if there is no harm done to others then, the state and other people have no right to interfere (libertarian case)
• Allowing people to die may free up scarce health resources (this is a possible argument, but so far no authority has seriously proposed it)

  Arguments Against Euthanasia

Similarly, Emanuel argues that there are four major arguments presented by opponents of euthanasia:

• All deaths are not painful.
• Termination of active treatment, combined with the effective use of pain relief are available as alternatives to euthanasia
• The distinction between active and passive euthanasia is morally significant and
• Legalizing euthanasia will put society on a slippery slope, which will lead to unacceptable consequences. (In Oregon 2013, the pain wasn’t one of the top five reasons that people sought euthanasia for. In fact, it was a loss of dignity, and a fear of burdening others).

Ethical arguments

• Euthanasia could weaken society’s respect for the sanctity of life.
• Accepting euthanasia would mean that some lives (those of the sick or disabled) are worth less than others.
• Voluntary euthanasia could start on a slippery slope that may lead to involuntary euthanasia and the killing of people who are thought undesirable.
• Euthanasia might not be in a person’s best interests.
• Euthanasia affects the rights of  other people and not just those of the patient

Religious arguments- Religions are opposed to euthanasia for a number of reasons.

a) Euthanasia is  against the will and word of God . (God has forbidden it)

• Virtually all religions in their scriptures say ‘you must not kill’. Therefore carrying out any of these would be against God’s command, and would be an attack on the sovereignty of God

b) Euthanasia weakens society’s respect for the  sanctity of life .

• Human life is sacred. Human lives are special because God created them. Human beings are made in God’s image. Therefore human life should be protected and preserved, whatever happens

c) law of karma – Suffering may have value (Freedom from worldly life)

• Hinduism and Buddhism see mortal life as part of a continuing cycle in which we take birth, live, die, and are reborn over and over again.
• D uring each cycle of life and death, human beings make progress towards their ultimate aim, which is liberation.
• Thus, shortening life interferes with the law of karma.

d) Voluntary euthanasia could start on a slippery slope that may lead to involuntary euthanasia and the killing of people who are thought undesirable

e) Most religions disapprove of euthanasia. Some absolutely forbid it.

For example, the Roman Catholic church is one of the most active organizations in opposing euthanasia.

f) Virtually all religions state that those who become vulnerable through illness or disability deserve special care and protection, and proper care of life is a much better thing than euthanasia.

  g) Non-harm – the principle of ahimsa- Hinduism and Buddhism regard all life as precious. (not just human life). They say that we should try to avoid harming living things and therefore this also rules out killing people, even if they want to die.

Practical arguments

• Proper palliative care could make euthanasia unnecessary.
• Euthanasia cannot be properly regulated
• Permitting euthanasia will lead to less good care for the terminally ill.
• Permitting euthanasia could undermine the commitment of doctors and nurses to save lives.
• Euthanasia may become in the future a cost-effective way to treat the terminally ill.
• Allowing euthanasia could discourage the search for new modes of treatment for the terminally ill.
• Euthanasia could discourage the motivation to provide good care for the dying.
• Euthanasia gives too much authority to doctors.
• Euthanasia exposes vulnerable people to pressure to end their lives.
• Moral pressure on elderly people by selfish families.
• Moral pressure to free up medical resources.
• Patients may feel euthanasia is the only way out when they are abandoned by their families.

                                                                 Indian scenario

The Medical Treatment of Terminally Ill Patients (Protection of Patients and Medical Practitioners) Bill

• Advance medical directive-  also called a  living will . It means a directive given by a  person that he/she as the case may be shall or shall not be given medical treatment in the future when he/she becomes terminally ill.
• Palliative care –

a) Provision of reasonable medical and nursing procedures for relief of physical pain, suffering, discomfort, or emotional or psychosocial suffering.

b)  A reasonable provision for food and water.

• Competent patient –  a patient who is not an incompetent patient.
• Incompetent patient- means a minor who is below 16 years of age or of unsound mind or a patient who is unable to-

a) understand information relevant to an informed decision about his/her medical treatment.

b) Retain and use that information to make decisions

c) Not able to make an informed decision due to disturbance in the functioning of the brain/mind.

d) Communicate his /her informed decision by speech, sign, language, or any other mode.

• Informed decision- means the decision as to continuance or withholding or withdrawing medical treatment taken by a patient who is competent and who is or has been informed about-

a) The nature of his/her illness

b) Any alternative form of treatment that is available

c) The consequences of those forms of treatment and

d) Consequences of remaining untreated

• Terminal illness- such illness/injury/degeneration of physical or mental condition which is causing extreme pain and suffering to the patients and according to the medical opinion will inevitably cause the untimely death of the patient concerned

      Meaningful existence of life is not possible due to irreversible vegetative condition.

Salient Provisions of the Draft Bill

• Every competent patient, including minors aged above 16 years, has a right to make a decision and express their desire to the medical practitioner attending on her or him on whether to continue further treatment or allow nature to take its own course.
• The Bill provides protection to patients and doctors from any liability for withholding or withdrawing medical treatment and states that palliative care (pain management) can continue.
• When a patient communicates her or his decision to the medical practitioner, such a decision is binding on the medical practitioner. However, it also notes that the medical practitioner must be “satisfied” that the patient is “competent” and that the decision has been taken on free will.
• There will be a panel of medical experts to decide on a case by case basis.
• The medical practitioner has to maintain all details of the patient and ensure he/she takes an informed decision. He is also required to inform the patient whether it would be best to withdraw or continue treatment. If the patient is not in a conscious state, he/she needs to inform family members. In the absence of family members, the medical practitioner needs to inform a person who is a regular visitor.
• The draft also lays down the process for seeking euthanasia, right from the composition of the medical team to move the high court for permission.
• Permission to be obtained from the high court. Any near relative, friend, legal guardian, medical doctor/staff attending the patient, any other person obtaining the leave of the court can apply to the jurisdictional high court. Such an application is treated as an original petition and the chief justice of the high court shall assign the same to the divisional bench without loss of time and the same should be disposed of as far as practical within a month. This bench will nominate and need a report from a committee of three reputed doctors.
• The Bill only portends to legalize what is called “passive euthanasia”, as discussed in the judgement pertaining to Aruna Shaunbaug. Active euthanasia is not being considered “as it is likely to be used by unscrupulous individuals to attain their ulterior motives.”
• Advanced medical directive or living will be void and not binding on any medical practitioner.
• The medical council of India may issue guidelines consistent with the provisions of the bill. It may review and  can also modify from time to time

Probable concerns- There have been mixed reactions to the draft bill. Some consider it a “good start”, but others didn’t quite agree. Some of the probable concerns are-

• The draft has disappointed experts who wanted complete clarity on the concept of a living will . While there have been demands for recognizing Advance Medical Directives (also known as a living will) whereby a person declares in advance whether or not treatment should be given if he is terminally-ill and incompetent to take decisions in the future, the government has rightly shot down the proposal.
• Child rights activists opine that in India, signing a contract or marrying before the age of 18 is not permitted, then how can a child decide to live or die.
• concerns for its misuse remain a major issue which ought to be addressed before it becomes a law in our country-

a) Doctors may come under the influence of corruption and fabricate material to prove that it is a terminal case with no chance of recovery.

b) Leaving it solely to the patient’s relatives or to the doctors or next friend to decide whether to withdraw the life support of an incompetent person, there is always a risk that this may be misused by some unscrupulous persons who wish to inherit or otherwise grab the property of the patient.

What is a “living will” and what are debates and arguments in relation to a living will?

 In 2014, the Supreme Court had issued notice to all the states seeking their views on whether a terminally ill person can execute a “living will” that his or her life support system be withdrawn if he or she reaches a vegetative state with no hope of revival. The court has also appointed amicus curiae.

A Living Will is a document that sets out a patient’s wishes regarding health care and how they want to be treated if they become seriously ill and unable to make or communicate their own choices . Living wills are also called as active declarations .

Arguments For living will-

• They respect the patient’s human rights, and in particular their right to reject medical treatment.
• Creating them encourages full discussion about end of life decisions.
• Knowing what the patient want means that doctors are more likely to give appropriate treatment.
• They help medical professionals in taking difficult decisions.
• A patient’s family and friends don’t have to take the difficult decisions

Arguments against a living will-

• Writing them may be very depressing.
• It’s difficult for a healthy person adequately to imagine what they would really want in the situations where a living will take effect.
• It may be hard to translate the words of the living will into actual medical action.
• Patients may change their minds but not change their living wills.
• They’re no use if they can’t be found quickly when needed.

In India attempt to commit suicides (Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code ) and abetment of suicide( Section 306 of the IPC) are crimes and both actions are punishable. The problem is that to be able to make a living will, the legislation would need to decriminalize both.  Though the court should consider the legitimacy of a will, there are several issues. For example, if the death of the patient is of material value to those are who close to him/her (such as property), the suspicion over the validity of the living can become a legal issue. Thus, there is a need to carefully set up conditions under which a living will be executed.

Summary- There is no point in prolonging the physical agony of a terminally ill person and the mental trauma of their loved ones. Therefore, euthanasia should be made legal in cases where there is no scope of a patient recovering. India however requires a mix of sensitivity and maturity for such an important decision to be taken as it involves ‘right to life’ and ‘right to die with dignity’.

  “He who has health has hope, and he who has hope has everything”.-Arabic Proverb

How to approach for the Civil Services Examination

Death is a private matter and if there is no harm to others, the state has no right to interfere.

Human life is sacred. Irrespective of the pain and suffering, human life should be protected and preserved.

GS Paper II- Health-related aspect (public health and safety. Welfare etc)

Practice Questions –

In Prelims-

Which of the following statement is /are correct

• Article 21 of the constitution also deals with the right to die.
• The draft bill legalizes active euthanasia in India.
• According to the draft bill on passive euthanasia, the advanced medical directive shall be void and not binding on any medical practitioner.
• The draft Bill also provides for active euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in certain cases.

GS paper II-

• Is passive euthanasia finally going to be a reality in India? Discuss?
• Critics of euthanasia claim that Voluntary euthanasia is the start of a slippery slope that leads to involuntary euthanasia and the killing of people who are considered undesirable. Critically discuss?
• Allowing euthanasia undermines the commitment of doctors and nurses to save lives. Critically discuss?

FAQ about Euthanasia or Mercy Killing

Is euthanasia legal in india, what are the different types of euthanasia.

UPSC exam related links are given below for candidates convenience in the preparation.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your Mobile number and Email id will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Request OTP on Voice Call

Post My Comment

IAS 2024 - Your dream can come true!

Download the ultimate guide to upsc cse preparation.

• Share Share

Register with BYJU'S & Download Free PDFs

Register with byju's & watch live videos.

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

UPSC Coaching, Study Materials, and Mock Exams

Enroll in ClearIAS UPSC Coaching Join Now Log In

Call us: +91-9605741000

Euthanasia – Arguments in Favour and Against

Last updated on April 7, 2024 by ClearIAS Team

Euthanasia is the deliberate act of ending a person’s life to relieve them of suffering. It is a complex and ethically sensitive topic that has sparked debates and discussions worldwide. There are different forms of euthanasia, and it is regulated differently in various countries.

Euthanasia (“good death”) is the practice of intentionally ending a life to relieve pain and suffering. It is also known as ‘mercy killing’.

In many countries, there is a divisive public controversy over the moral, ethical, and legal issues of euthanasia. Euthanasia is categorized in different ways, which include voluntary, non-voluntary, or involuntary. Euthanasia is also classified into active and passive Euthanasia.

Table of Contents

Voluntary, Non-Voluntary, and Involuntary Euthanasia

• Voluntary euthanasia: It is conducted with the consent of the patient and is termed voluntary euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia is legal in some countries. Jurisdictions, where euthanasia is legal, include the Netherlands, Colombia, Belgium, and Luxembourg.
• Non-Voluntary euthanasia: It is conducted where the consent of the patient is unavailable and is termed non-voluntary euthanasia. Non-voluntary euthanasia is illegal in all countries. Examples include child euthanasia, which is illegal worldwide but decriminalized under certain specific circumstances in the Netherlands under the Groningen Protocol.
• Involuntary euthanasia: It is conducted against the will of the patient and is termed involuntary euthanasia. Involuntary euthanasia is usually considered murder.

Passive vs Active euthanasia

Voluntary, non-voluntary, and involuntary euthanasia can all be further divided into passive or active variants.

• Passive euthanasia entails the withholding of common treatments, such as antibiotics, necessary for the continuance of life.
• Active euthanasia entails the use of lethal substances or forces, such as administering a lethal injection, to kill and is the most controversial means.

Euthanasia debate

Euthanasia raises profound ethical and moral questions. Supporters argue that it can be a compassionate and dignified way to end suffering, particularly in cases of terminal illness.

Opponents argue that it raises significant ethical concerns, including the potential for abuse, coercion, and mistakes in diagnosing terminal conditions.

Arguments in Favor

Historically, the euthanasia debate has tended to focus on several key concerns. According to euthanasia opponent Ezekiel Emanuel, proponents of euthanasia have presented four main arguments:

• that people have a right to self-determination, and thus should be allowed to choose their fate
• assisting a subject to die might be a better choice than requiring that they continue to suffer
• the distinction between passive euthanasia, which is often permitted, and active euthanasia, which is not substantive (or that the underlying principle–the doctrine of double effect–is unreasonable or unsound);
• permitting euthanasia will not necessarily lead to unacceptable consequences. Pro-euthanasia activists often point to countries like the Netherlands and Belgium, and states like Oregon, where euthanasia has been legalized, to argue that it is mostly unproblematic.
• Constitution of India: ‘Right to life’ is a natural right embodied in Article 21 but euthanasia/suicide is an unnatural termination or extinction of life and, therefore, incompatible and inconsistent with the concept of ‘right to life’. The State must protect life and the physician’s duty to provide care and not to harm patients. Supreme Court in Gian Kaur Case 1996 has held that the right to life under Article 21 does not include the right to die.
• Caregiver’s burden: Right-to-die supporters argue that people who have an incurable, degenerative, disabling, or debilitating condition should be allowed to die in dignity. This argument is further defended by those, who have chronic debilitating illness even though it is not terminal such as severe mental illness. The majority of such petitions are filed by the sufferers or family members or their caretakers. The caregiver’s burden is huge and cuts across various financial, emotional, time, physical, mental, and social domains.
• Refusing care: The right to refuse medical treatment is well recognized in law, including medical treatment that sustains or prolongs life. For example, a patient suffering from blood cancer can refuse treatment or deny feeds through a nasogastric tube. Recognition of the right to refuse treatment gives way to passive euthanasia.
• Encouraging organ transplantation: Mercy killing in terminally ill patients provides an opportunity to advocate for organ donation. This, in turn, will help many patients with organ failure waiting for transplantation. Not only does euthanasia give the ‘Right to die‘ for the terminally ill, but also the ‘Right to life‘ for the organ needy patients.

Arguments against

Emanuel argues that there are four major arguments presented by opponents of euthanasia:

• not all deaths are painful;
• alternatives, such as cessation of active treatment, combined with the use of effective pain relief, are available;
• the distinction between active and passive euthanasia is morally significant; and
• legalizing euthanasia will place society on a slippery slope, which will lead to unacceptable consequences
• Euthanasia weakens society’s respect for the sanctity of life.
• Euthanasia might not be in a person’s best interests, for example, getting old-aged parents killed for property will.
• Belief in God’s miracle of curing the terminally ill.
• The prospect of a discovery of a possible cure for the disease shortly.
• Proper palliative care makes euthanasia unnecessary.
• There is no way of properly regulating euthanasia.
• Allowing euthanasia will lead to less good care for the terminally ill.
• Allowing euthanasia undermines the commitment of doctors and nurses to save lives.
• Euthanasia may become a cost-effective way to treat the terminally ill.
• Allowing euthanasia will discourage the search for new cures and treatments for the terminally ill.
• Euthanasia gives too much power to doctors.

Euthanasia in India

Passive euthanasia is legal in India. On 7 March 2011, the Supreme Court of India legalized passive euthanasia using the withdrawal of life support to patients in a permanent vegetative state. The decision was made as part of the verdict in a case involving Aruna Shanbaug, who had been in a Persistent Vegetative State (PVS) for 42 years until she died in 2015.

The Aruna Shanbaug Case

In March 2011, the Supreme Court of India passed a historic judgment permitting Passive Euthanasia in the country. This judgment was passed after Pinki Virani’s plea to the highest court in December 2009 under the Constitutional provision of “Next Friend”. It’s a landmark law which places the power of choice in the hands of the individual, over government, medical or religious control which sees all suffering as “destiny”. The Supreme Court specified two irreversible conditions to permit Passive Euthanasia Law in its 2011 Law:

• The brain-dead for whom the ventilator can be switched off.
• Those in a Persistent Vegetative State (PVS) for whom the feed can be tapered out and pain-managing palliatives be added, according to laid-down international specifications.

The same judgment law also asked for the scrapping of 309 , the code that penalizes those who survive suicide attempts. In December 2014, the Government of India declared its intention.

PIL filed by Common Cause

However, on 25 February 2014, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India termed the judgment in the Aruna Shanbaug case to be ‘inconsistent in itself’ and referred the issue of euthanasia to its five-judge Constitution bench on a PIL filed by Common Cause , which case is the basis of the current debate.

Then, the CJI referred to an earlier Constitution Bench judgment which, in the Gian Kaur case , “did not express any binding view on the subject of euthanasia; rather it reiterated that the legislature would be the appropriate authority to bring change.” Though that judgment said the right to live with dignity under Article 21 was inclusive of the right to die with dignity, it did not conclude the validity of euthanasia, be it active or passive.

“So, the only judgment that holds the field about euthanasia in India is the ruling in the Aruna Shanbaug case, which upholds the validity of passive euthanasia and lays down an elaborate procedure for executing the same on the wrong premise that the Constitution Bench in Gian Kaur had upheld the same,” the CJI said.

Common Cause Case: In 2018, the Supreme Court issued a significant judgment in the Common Cause case. The court recognized the right to die with dignity as a fundamental right and permitted passive euthanasia. It provided guidelines for the process and conditions under which passive euthanasia could be allowed.

Government’s endorsement of Passive Euthanasia

On December 23, 2014, the Government of India endorsed and re-validated the Passive Euthanasia judgment law in a Press Release, after stating in the Rajya Sabha as follows: The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, while dismissing the plea for mercy killing in a particular case, laid down comprehensive guidelines to process cases relating to passive euthanasia.

Thereafter, the matter of mercy killing was examined in consultation with the Ministry of Law and Justice and it has been decided that since the Hon’ble Supreme Court has already laid down the guidelines, these should be followed and treated as law in such cases. At present, there is no legislation on this subject and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is binding on all.

The court rejected active euthanasia using lethal injection. In the absence of a law regulating euthanasia in India, the court stated that its decision becomes the law of the land until the Indian parliament enacts a suitable law. Active euthanasia, including the administration of lethal compounds to end life, is still illegal in India, and in most countries.

As India had no law about euthanasia, the Supreme Court’s guidelines are law until and unless Parliament passes legislation. The following guidelines were laid down:

• A decision has to be taken to discontinue life support either by the parents 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.
• Even if a decision is taken by the near relatives or doctors or next friend to withdraw life support, such a decision requires approval from the High Court concerned.
• When such an application is filled, the Chief Justice of the High Court should forthwith constitute a Bench of at least two Judges who should decide whether to approve or not. A committee of three reputed doctors to be nominated by the Bench, will report the condition of the patient. Before giving the verdict, a notice regarding the report should be given to the close relatives and the State. After hearing the parties, the High Court can give its verdict.

A law commission had proposed legislation on “passive euthanasia”, it said. According to the Centre, the decision to come out with a bill was taken after considering the directives of the apex court, the law commission’s 241st report, and a private member bill introduced in Parliament in 2014.

The Centre said that initially, a meeting was held under the chairmanship of B.P. Sharma, secretary in the Health and Family Welfare Ministry, on May 22, 2015, to examine the draft of The Medical Treatment of Terminally Ill Patients (Protection of Patients and Medical Practitioners) Bill and the draft of The Euthanasia (Regulation) Bill.

This move to introduce a bill is a welcome step to clear the grey areas in the Euthanasia debate. Students can also link to this issue while answering questions on:

• Judicial activism: SC framing laws when the parliament hasn’t. Just like the Visaka case.
• Ethical dilemma in Paper 4 .

In India,  euthanasia has no legal aspect , and there is no penal law yet introduced in the IPC that specifically deals with euthanasia.

• However, the Supreme Court of India legalized passive euthanasia in 2018 with some conditions, allowing patients to withdraw medical support if they go into an irreversible coma.
• Passive euthanasia is a matter of ‘living will’, and an adult in their conscious mind is permitted to refuse medical treatment or voluntarily decide not to take medical treatment to embrace death naturally, under certain conditions.
• Individuals are only allowed to draft a living will while in a normal state of health and mind.
• Active euthanasia remains illegal in India.

Read:  Living wills

Article by: Jishnu J Raju

Aim IAS, IPS, or IFS?

About ClearIAS Team

ClearIAS is one of the most trusted learning platforms in India for UPSC preparation. Around 1 million aspirants learn from the ClearIAS every month.

Our courses and training methods are different from traditional coaching. We give special emphasis on smart work and personal mentorship. Many UPSC toppers thank ClearIAS for our role in their success.

Download the ClearIAS mobile apps now to supplement your self-study efforts with ClearIAS smart-study training.

Reader Interactions

February 11, 2016 at 3:48 pm

excellent one..

February 24, 2016 at 8:34 pm

Giving passive euthanasia to a patient who is already dead (not literally) is a right choice.Its better than making them as well as others to suffer.

July 20, 2017 at 4:28 pm

so very true.

July 1, 2016 at 10:58 pm

If the patient does not wants to suffer and himself asking for euthanasia then voluntary euthanasia should be made legal because it will be difficult for him to live than to die. But in case of involuntary euthanasia, there should be some specific time limit upto which the patient’s relatives must wait for him to recover but if there is no improvement like in case of coma , after 7-10 years , there is less chances of the patient to recover. In such cases , involuntary euthanasia should be made legal.

March 16, 2017 at 12:37 pm

no it is not possible If the patient tends to recover over a period of time or suddenly he becomes normal then the involuntary euthanasia will become very dangerous

March 16, 2017 at 12:35 pm

Very Very Useful

June 26, 2018 at 8:12 am

Helpful source I can use to rely on research. Thank you so much, clear IAS.

May 17, 2019 at 9:58 pm

Thanku for quality content

May 23, 2020 at 10:27 pm

“Mercy Killing ” is a responsible debate . It mainly depends on persons will on his /her life.

July 2, 2020 at 2:26 pm

Euthanasia should not be accepted as there is always some hope for better.

May 24, 2021 at 11:57 am

If under Article 21 of the constitution, right to live with dignity is inclusive of right to die with dignity, then why should the provisions under the Euthanasia act be restricted to the old and dying patients. There are a lot of people in their 60s and 70s with limited financial resources, who feel neglected / unwanted by the family who would like to die with dignity rather than be dependent on their children or the other members of family. They may be in good health but would still like to self determine to end their life with dignity. In such cases the law should allow for such people to adopt active Euthanasia. Such people could be persuaded to donate their organs which will help save other lives.

August 25, 2021 at 9:40 am

euthanasia cannot be legalised because of its higher probability of misuse. whether it is for property, money or because of any family problem

August 4, 2022 at 12:11 pm

A thought for all: If you do not have a choice to life, i.e. choose to be born then how can choosing your own means of death, be fair or valid? Something you cannot create or re-created is not yours to manage. My say: God is the giver of life and He alone should take it. Our sufferings are a means of learning, loving, understanding and above all our closeness to Almighty God.

June 28, 2023 at 6:36 pm

ur death is already written whether you take it or god does so doesnt matter

September 19, 2022 at 12:47 pm

I can’t put my dog to sleep for I am as old as he; and despite our handicaps he also wants to live like me.

Boghos L. Artinian

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Don’t lose out without playing the right game!

Follow the ClearIAS Prelims cum Mains (PCM) Integrated Approach.

Join ClearIAS PCM Course Now

UPSC Online Preparation

• Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)
• Indian Administrative Service (IAS)
• Indian Police Service (IPS)
• IAS Exam Eligibility
• UPSC Free Study Materials
• UPSC Exam Guidance
• UPSC Prelims Test Series
• UPSC Syllabus
• UPSC Online
• UPSC Prelims
• UPSC Interview
• UPSC Toppers
• UPSC Previous Year Qns
• UPSC Age Calculator
• UPSC Calendar 2024
• About ClearIAS
• ClearIAS Programs
• ClearIAS Fee Structure
• IAS Coaching
• UPSC Coaching
• UPSC Online Coaching
• ClearIAS Blog
• Important Updates
• Announcements
• Book Review
• ClearIAS App
• Work with us
• Advertise with us
• Privacy Policy
• Terms and Conditions
• Talk to Your Mentor

Featured on

and many more...

Take ClearIAS Mock Exams: Analyse Your Progress

Analyse Your Performance and Track Your All-India Ranking

Ias/ips/ifs online coaching: target cse 2025.

Are you struggling to finish the UPSC CSE syllabus without proper guidance?

Home / Essay Samples / Health / Euthanasia / So What Should We Do: a Controversy About Mercy Killing

So What Should We Do: a Controversy About Mercy Killing

• Category: Health
• Topic: Assisted Suicide , Euthanasia

Pages: 1 (620 words)

• Downloads: -->

--> ⚠️ Remember: This essay was written and uploaded by an--> click here.

Found a great essay sample but want a unique one?

are ready to help you with your essay

You won’t be charged yet!

Universal Health Care Essays

Assisted Suicide Essays

Underage Drinking Essays

Alcohol Abuse Essays

Drug Addiction Essays

Related Essays

We are glad that you like it, but you cannot copy from our website. Just insert your email and this sample will be sent to you.

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service  and  Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Your essay sample has been sent.

In fact, there is a way to get an original essay! Turn to our writers and order a plagiarism-free paper.

samplius.com uses cookies to offer you the best service possible.By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .--> -->