Imagine April dying in less than a year in a most horrible way, on a hospital bed while her baby is crying to be held by her and only her. Maybe she won’t even die. Maybe she will be living on life support. Imagine the trouble her husband will have in moving on if she’s just there and just how critical it will be, at a time like this, to move on, for the baby’s sake.
I’d like to talk about the reasonable acceptability of ‘rational suicide’, ‘euthanasia’, ‘mercy killing’ or ‘dying with dignity’. Each of these gives every person the right to die with dignity and gives them the authority to choose the time of their death and how and with whose help it should happen (Sokol, 2007). My main points throughout this debate will be focused around two major arguments – “Those two arguments are the mercy argument -- the notion of sparing someone unnecessary suffering -- and the self-determination argument, the right to determine ones own fate or level of care while dying.” (Newman, 1992).
First of all, many patients on respirators or life support systems are not conscious and so do not have the power to decide whether they want to live or die (Fisher, 2006). In such cases, families or doctors have to decide and do their best to relieve the patients and family members of pain. In such cases, mercy killing seems to be a great option for the patients, and a decision that they themselves must probably have made. Even when some patients are made aware of their life expectancy, they should be allowed to choose death as right of self-determination and choosing one’s own fate.
Secondly, there is a risk in everything but when the benefits outweigh these risks, a counter approach which is risky is still taken. For example, every time we travel in our cars, we risk the threat of accidents or being killed on the road. Despite the many deaths that take place because of road accidents, this risk is ignored, keeping in mind the