In seven pages this paper argues that mercy killing should be an individual rather than subject to legislation because its use can vary significantly among people and situations. Five sources are cited in the bibliography.
Name of Research Paper File: D0_MTmerkil.rtf
Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
concept of "mercy killings," or, as theyre medically known, euthanasia or assisted suicide. While suicide isnt illegal - thousands attempt to kill themselves every month - having someone else "help"
is considered murder. When it comes to a healthy person, this would be true. But what about someone who is suffering a life-threatening illness for which there is no cure
and no hope of survival? Should a person be kept alive, or rather, not be assisted in dying, simply because the laws call that type of thing murder? The contention
of this paper is that no one should have to make that choice - it is up to each and every person to decide when he or she wants to
die. And if that person requires help, he or she should receive that help. Its called death with dignity, and its a persons choice.
Now, no one is suggesting that someone who is terminal and in pain should be kept alive - and in pain. The main difference between those who
believe in death with dignity and a right to life involves two different philosophies, both of which come down to what the definition of "terminal" would consist of. A brief
history Even though the debate over life vs. assisted death keeps heating up, it is by no means a new one. The
Greek physician Hippocrates, used as his motto "do no harm," and on the heels of that would "promise not to end anothers life needlessly." Yet for Hippocrates there is Socrates,
who took his own life with a cup of hemlock, or poison. He was allowed to die when he chose. In more