Introduction
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
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)
Conclusion
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.
Works Cited
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, (4th 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.