g is an ethical issue in which a struggle between the body and mind would happen and the winner would be either the body (In case the person opts for mercy killing) or the mind (In case the person decided against the mercy killing).
Proponents of mercy killing are of the opinion that it is better to assist a person medically to terminate his life, if he is in a hopeless situation. In their opinion, the person who suffers pain and discomforts should have given the right to take decision about sustaining his life in such pathetic condition. Others can cite ethical or moral issues against the mercy killing; but the ultimate sufferer would be the patient only.
On the other hand, critics of mercy killing believe that only the creator has the right to take the life back of his creations. They are of the opinion that life is the most important thing in the world. Nobody has so far succeeded in unveiling the miseries about the life. Nobody knows from where we come and where we go after death. No science or technology, so far succeeded in creating an artificial life in a laboratory setup which underlines the importance and value of life on earth. Moreover critics also argue that only the creator has the right to modify or destroy creations and anything against his will would be unethical.
As expected, we met strong arguments both in favour and against mercy killing during our research. We found most of the arguments of the proponents and the critics logical and valuable. It was difficult for us to take a position on this issue and our group actively discussed all the major arguments from both the sides in order to make a conclusion. Some of the arguments we found during our research are given below.
The article IF MERCY KILLING BECOMES LEG, argued that mercy killing would be misused if it is made legal (IF MERCY KILLING BECOMES LEGAL). The above argument seems to be logical as the antisocial elements can kill innocent people on behalf of mercy killing in order to