Various writers have taken the consent of writing about the issue of mercy killing in the society. Surprisingly, people have taken the issue seriously to an extent of even seeking for its implementation. However, my conscious is substantially clear that initiating mercy killing is entirely unethical and against the moral obligation to the society because life is precious and has to be lived to the fullest. In fact, if we respect the lives of others in the society; then the entire issue of euthanasia is completely wrong. Human being should support one another in addressing life concerns rather than taking one another’s lives. Therefore, euthanasia should not be allowed in the community.

You're lucky! Use promo "samples20"
and get a custom paper on
"Conversing With Multiple Perspective On Mercy Killing"
with 20% discount!
Order Now

Consequently, I stand to oppose the issue of mercy killing because it is against the moral obligation to the society. Taking somebody’s life is one of the issues that have been condemned by the society for centuries now. Thus, other than going against the social responsibility in the society, taking somebody’s life can subject individuals to sad moments for the rest of their lives. Thus, as far as a majority of worldly countries have not approved the issue to be part of their rules, it is entirely sad to engage in any form of argument that are designed to foresee the use of mercy killings in the society (Johnson, 2014).

In addition to that, mercy killing should not be given room to the society because the essence of relating the practice with relieving people from suffering is not a substantial reason because that suffering is part of life. Besides, medications can be provided to boost the survival of such individuals until they die in a natural and humane manner. Even people who are in seductive states still exist biologically, and they have every valid reason for awaiting their natural deaths. It is important to note essentially that we all live once and once life has been taken it cannot be restored. So it is important that we remain humane and protect lives with every possible mean (Rao, 2010).

Far from that, there are others who feel that mercy killing should be conducted to prevent the spread of contagious diseases in the society which is morally incorrect. Consequently, they should know that people go to hospitals to acquire treatment. Thus, whichever criteria the hospital will use to save their lives should not matter to them as long as they are not subjected to mercy killing. Nonetheless, I have a strong reason to believe that we are not sure about our futures and once such merciless laws are passed it may not be a surprise if they will be applied to us (Rao, 2010).

It is also important to understand that subjecting people to euthanasia with a mindset of solving our community issues and concerns like preventing wastage of resources like hospital beds is not a good idea. However, just because we may want hospital beds for people who have greater chances of surviving does not mean that we should subject others to mercy killing. There must be other ways of resolving the issue of resources for example by nursing and treating people from home. Most importantly, human beings are the most intelligent creatures on earth and despite the fact that there are various arising challenges that we are likely to encounter in our lives; radical solutions are always there to address them. Therefore, instead of subjecting people who are terminally ill to mercy killing, we should reconsider our decisions and give them chances of surviving because who knows? Maybe we can find a cure that can restore them back to their original lives (Johnson, 2014).

  • Ezra, Ovadia. “Mercy Death Or Killing.” MORAL DILEMMAS IN REAL LIFE Law and Philosophy Library(2006): 55-67. Web.
  • Johnson, Kathryn. Mercy Killing. Place of Publication Not Identified: Publisher Not Identified, 2014. Print.
  • Rao, Nageshkumar. “Chapter-05 Euthanasia (Mercy Killing).” Textbook of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology (2010): 45-47. Web.