December 5, 2006 2:49am CST
should mercy killing be allowed Many people support the right of a terminally ill patient to die - but what if the right becomes an obligation??? And what of the potential for abuse by impatient heirs??? Should dying patients have the right to order their doctors not to start or continue medical treatment? Should doctors be protected from prosecution if they shorten a patient's life expectancy with pain-killing drugs? Most of us would answer yes to both questions. But does this mean we need a "right to die" law? Or is there more to the issue than first meets the eye? Public discussion of the treatment of dying patients often confuses two separate issues. First, is the right of the terminally ill person to be allowed to die without being subjected to invasive medical procedures? Second, is the question of whether a dying person should also have the right to hasten his or her own death, and require the help of doctors and nurses to do so. respond wat u feel
9 Dec 06
yes mercy killing should be sopported because the patient is in a condition that he cannot respond to any medical treatment... so by offering him mercy killing he definetly gets relief from that hell he is facing by laying on the bed...he may donate his healthy organs to oother so that he may get relief and satisfaction before dying...
1 person likes this
5 Dec 06
but should we be not a bit sympathetic to a dying man. and if you are tu be taken correctly, then there should be no capital punishment which is still practised in many countries,including mine 'India'. i feel it could be allowed if there is no hope for survival of a patient. it is better if he suffers less. what u feel??