The case for mercy killing

• Main Author: Pek, Felicia Jia Ying
• Other Authors: Lim Chong Ming
• Format: Final Year Project
• Language: English
• Published: Nanyang Technological University 2024
• Subjects: Arts and Humanities
• Online Access: https://hdl.handle.net/10356/174379
• Institution: Nanyang Technological University

Premature termination of life through medical means have been debated in moral and legal fields. While some countries have legalised euthanasia, the idea of mercy killing is still generally unacceptable. Legal euthanasia includes passive euthanasia and active euthanasia. Both forms of euthanasia are voluntary. On the other hand, mercy killing itself does not seek explicit consent from the patient. The act of killing, while similar to the methods used by active euthanasia, is considered heinous and could be classified as murder. In ethics, mercy killing is thought to be violating the personal autonomy of the incompetent patient. However, I aim to make the case for mercy killing in this essay. Using Negative Utilitarianism, I argue that letting die is morally worse than killing since it prolongs unnecessary suffering. The Harm-Based account shows that no unjustified harm is done onto the patient since it does not further deny them their right to life. Moreover, surrogate decision makers act in the best interest of the patient using information obtained from medical professionals, and as they seek to relieve suffering, mercy killing is a justified option.