Death vs Mercy Killing - Essay Example

Philosophy 9 May Essay Questions Chapter 9 Question How does mercy death differ from mercy killing? Is one more morally acceptable than the other? Why or why not? The terminology mercy death means taking a direct action to terminate the life of a patient because the patient has requested it. Mercy death is therefore assisted murder. Terminally ill patients are usually unable to commit suicide and therefore ask someone to ‘put them out of their misery’ (Padilla 218). Such patients not only give their permission to end their lives but also in most cases request and even demand that their lives be terminated. The terminology mercy killing on the other hand refers to someone taking a direct action to terminate the life of a patient without permission from the patient. The decision to take such an action is usually made on the assumption that the patient’s life is no longer meaningful or that if the patient was in a position to say so, he would express his desire to die (Padilla 219). The distinction between mercy death and mercy killing is that mercy death is voluntary and is conducted with the permission of the patient and often at his request while mercy killing is involuntary and does not involve the patient’s permission or request. None of the actions is more morally acceptable than the other and arguments exist against these actions. Many arguments used against suicide are applicable to mercy death to some extent but the issues surrounding mercy death are complicated by the fact that another person has to do the killing (Padilla 227). If patients who request for mercy death would wait to see the results of medical therapy and science, they would probably adjust to their situations and change their minds about dying. Mercy killing is also complicated by the fact that it is done without the consent of the patient and this is a violation of the Value of Life Principle, no one has the right to decide whether a person’s life is worthy. Human beings also have rights and they are not the same as those of animals and no matter what science may say no human being is merely an animal. Question 2: What are the arguments for and against mercy death? Is it morally justifiable in some situations? The first argument about mercy death is that people who are suffering and in pain are usually in a state of fear and depression and therefore cannot simply make rational decisions, if such patients were to wait and see what medical science and therapy can do for them they would probably adjust to their situation and change their minds about dying. The second argument states that just as we are generally willing to put animals out of their misery when they suffer, we should do the same for human beings but the rights of human beings to live and die are not the same as those of animals. Western religions maintain that human beings have immortal souls and even non religious humanists talk about the human spirit or personality stating that it should be accorded greater respect than the mere physical self (Padilla 230). Mercy killing is a direct violation of the Principle Value of Life mainly because it involves taking the life of an innocent person, murder is murder regardless of the motive and this is cemented by the fact that patients have not or cannot give their consent for the termination of their lives. The domino argument states that because the consent of patients cannot be obtained, an outside decision about the worth, value and meaning of a patient’s life has to be made but this is a dangerous move because no one has the right to decide if a person’s life is worthy, has value or is meaningful. There is also a possibility of finding cures in future and patients could therefore continue living. In cases of financial and emotional burdens to the family but finances and emotions should not be determining factors where human life is concerned. Both mercy death and mercy killing are not morally justifiable because humane alternatives for both mercy death and mercy killing exist. The hospice approach is a good alternative, tired sick and dying people are cared for and comforted, patients are able to live comfortably and meaningfully until they die. The hospice approach allows patients to die their own natural deaths in peace and dignity with support from their families, friends, medical community and society in general (Padilla 242). Chapter 10 Question 1: Is redemption compatible with justice? If a murderer mends his ways, should this change have an effect on his punishment? Is mercy (giving someone a break) compatible with justice (giving someone what he deserves)? Redemption is compatible with justice and criminals who mend their ways should be recognized and changes effected on their punishments. The act of redemption in the justice system is known as restorative justice. It is an innovative movement within the field of criminal justice. Restorative justice programs are based on ethics, on the conviction that all persons deserve to be treated with some semblance of decency, facing the stare of a cold blooded killer, it can be hard to stand by that belief, and unfortunately people can only get past the ugliness of the current situation by looking closely at specific alternatives (Furio 7). The concept of restorative justice is broad covering issues of both personal and community relationships. Just like any other population or any other collective unit criminal facilities are also filled with interaction, conflict and the need for conflict resolution. Restorative justice is not a trick to give prisoners a break but rather an effort to provide a solution to violence and eventually to bias and conflict. It is more concerned with restoring the soul, the humanity of the criminal even if parole from jail is not a possibility (Furio 7).the rationale behind restorative justice is not to let off criminals and prisoners easy but rather to offer an alternative solution to peoples definitions of punishment and the criminal himself. Restorative justice is simply a specific strategy, roadmap or a set of guiding principles. The concept works not only at higher judicial or wider global levels but the blueprint can also be adjusted to support various levels of criminology and all aspects of criminology. Successful implementation of restorative justice is based on a framework but although the principles provide an outline, programs view crime in a different light and each circumstance is perceived as deserving its own punishment and healing. Question 2: Suppose neither lethal injection nor any other form of execution can be made painless. Would this fact justify abolition of the death penalty or provide evidence against it? Why or why not? This fact would justify abolition of the death penalty and also provide evidence against it. The death penalty still remains a very sensitive subject that touches upon some of the deepest instincts and provokes a lot of emotions that influence people’s opinions. Whether through painful or painless means all human beings have rights and human life needs to be respected. No one has a right to terminate the life of another person; religious people add that since life has been bestowed upon us by God, no man should take it away. The right to life is the most fundamental of all human rights; it is recognized and protected in all international and regional human rights treaties concerned with protection of both civil and political rights. Retaliation is not a justified ground upon which to build a system of penal law. The death penalty perpetuates a cycle of violence and promotes a sense of vengeance in people’s cultures (Burch 239). It is impossible to teach that killing is wrong by killing but the death penalty offers a tragic illusion that life can be defended by taking life. Reliance on the death penalty as a method of punishment diminishes everyone in the society and is a sign of growing disrespect for human life. The death penalty is not an effective deterrent to crime and this is prove that crime cannot be overcome by simply executing criminals nor can the lives of the innocent be restored by ending the lives of those convicted for their murders (Burch 239). Capital punishment is also unjust; this is because the use of the death penalty as punishment for murder carries the risk of occasionally executing an innocent person by mistake or abuse in a process that is irrevocable. Cruel and unusual methods of execution are not humane; the eighth amendment prohibits the imposition of cruel and unusual punishments. Chapter 12 Question 2: Is there a difference between civil unions and gay marriages? Do these terms matter? Why or why not? A civil union is a legally recognized form of partnership similar to marriage. It is also referred to as a civil partnership. Civil unions can be partnerships between people of the opposite sex or people of the same sex. Gay marriage is marriage between two people of the same gender identity. It is also referred to as same-sex marriage. The difference between civil unions and gay marriages is very little; this is because in the states that legalize same sex marriages partners get into civil unions. The rights and benefits attached to civil unions are only good in the state they are conferred therefore same sex couples under a civil union regime still face substantial legal and social predicaments (Lee 45). Due to the fact that most states in the United States have either have their own versions of Defense of Marriage Act or constitutional amendments restricting marriages only to heterosexual couples, a civil union status in many cases does not allow same sex-couples to enjoy the benefits they would otherwise enjoy in their home state once they move to another state. Instead of listing all of the incidents of marriage that are extended to same-sex couples, the civil union law is framed as extending all statutory, regulatory, common-law, equitable and policy features of civil marriage to parties to a civil union (Alderson 58). Parties to civil unions are included in the definition and use of terms such as spouse, family and other terms; this ensures that features of marriage such as access to reproductive assistance, parental status or the right to apply to family court for divorce services stay available to those who are civilly united. Parties to a civil union apply for civil union licenses instead of marriage licenses and although religious celebrants can celebrate civil unions, the whole process of recording and registering civil unions is segregated in civil union registries and tabulated in returns of civil union statistics. Question 6: Is premarital sex among teens morally right (or wrong) regardless of its physical and social risks (like STDs) The question of whether premarital sex among teens is morally right or wrong is the choice of an individual teenager provided that the teenager is educated about issues surrounding sex. All over the world teen sex is still considered deviant. Most adults in developed countries encourage their teens to postpone initial sexual activity, the cultural attitude in those countries is that teen sexual activity is natural but should be approached with awareness and responsibility(Karraker and Grochowski 183). Although social sexual desires are first felt during puberty it does not mean that adolescents are emotionally ready to have sexual intercourse or any other form of sexual contact. However, teens need the assurance that their sexual desires and tensions are normal. Adolescent sexuality often resembles a roller coaster, with each day bringing new challenges physically, emotionally, psychologically and socially (Karraker and Grochowski 183). Adults who operate under the cover of protecting teens by keeping them innocent and ignorant may have good intentions but this places teens at greater risk of unhealthy outcomes psychologically, emotionally, socially and physically. Families should play an active role in preparing their youngest members for these ethical, behavioral and social changes. Families and family studies professionals need to be aware of the facts about teen premarital sexual activity. In recent years there have been new trends in adolescent sexual behaviors; in the mid-1990s researchers began alerting parents about the new trends towards oral sex among teens. Warnings are too often drowned out by the noise over ‘no sex until marriage’ programs that fail to discuss what is sex and how to safely meet sexual needs, desires and urges(Karraker and Grochowski 185). Public attitudes towards sex out of wedlock have become increasingly liberal therefore today’s teenagers face a whole new set of issues and dilemmas that cannot be easily resolved by slogans such as just saying no to sex and child bearing. It might not be realistic to ask today’s teens to abstain from sex while there are no clear guidelines on when young people are ready for sex. Works Cited Padilla, Reynaldo. Medical Ethics’ 2006 Ed. Manila: Rex Bookstore, Inc., 2006. Print. Burch, Hobart. What's Right? Social Ethics Choices and Applications. Bloomington: AuthorHouse, 2009. Print. Lee, Man. Equality, Dignity, and Same-Sex Marriage: A Rights Disagreement in Democratic Societies. Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2010. Print. Lahey, Kathleen and, Kevin Alderson. Same-Sex Marriage: The Personal and the Political. Ontario: Insomniac Press, 2004. Print. Karraker, Meg and, Janet Grochowski. Families with Futures: A Survey of Family Studies for the 21st Century. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2006. Print. Furio, Jennifer. Restorative Justice: Prison as Hell or a Chance for Redemption? New York: Algora Publishing, 2002. Print. Read More