National Legislation Legitimizing Mercy Killing
Mercy killing can be regarded as an option in various settings as people often have no strength or patience to endure pain. Supporters of the legitimization of euthanasia emphasized this matter (Leming & Dickinson, 2015). Furthermore, many people believe that euthanasia is closely related to people’s basic right to self-determination. The development of the corresponding laws would enable healthcare professionals to meet such needs of their patients without the fear of prosecution.
Nevertheless, the opponents of the legitimization of mercy killing stress that euthanasia is still a form of murder, and no one has the right to decide who can and should live. Moreover, the creation of laws, ironically, can lead to various violations. Opponents of euthanasia claim that it is safer to keep it unlawful to make it impossible to violate laws by, for example, changing data in health records or even falsifying patients’ requests concerning mercy killing.
How is it possible to ensure the proper control over the people implementing the corresponding procedures?
National Legislation Legitimizing the Selling of Human Organs
One of the major arguments in favor of human organ legitimization is the chance to save lives. Bhardwaj (2017) tells a story about a man who died but saved five lives as his organs were transplanted to those in need. Supporters of the development of the corresponding legislation also claim that it will bring more order in the area. However, there are many arguments against the legitimization of human organ selling. The most extreme situation is chaos where people are killed for their organs (Leming & Dickinson, 2015). Another issue is associated with cultural and religious beliefs. Many people due to their religious or cultural peculiarities believe that human bodies cannot be regarded as sets of certain parts.
Can relatives decide whether the organ of their loved one can be transplanted to another person or is it the donor’s choice?
The Establishment of a National Registration of Live Donors
The creation of a national list of live donors is closely related to the issues concerning organ transplantation. For instance, some say that there should be no such a list in the first place as transplantation is unethical and even dangerous. Another argument against national registration is the fear of data loss and breaches (Leming & Dickinson, 2015). On the other hand, supporters of this list claim that it can help people waiting for the transplantation they need. Patel (2018) notes that patients on a waiting list find it disturbing to contact healthcare facilities asking about their place on the list. Besides, the registration of live donors can help patients reduce their costs that are substantial as patients often have to pay for the expenses associated with the surgery.
What violations are possible if the national registration is introduced?
Response to Reply Question 1
- Response to the entry starting with “If national legislation were to legitimize mercy killing of people, then that could potentially allow hard decisions to be made more easily…”
- I agree with the statement concerning the person having the right to decide. However, I also believe that the development of technology can soon increase the quality of patients’ lives. Thus, euthanasia can deprive patients of the chance to be healed while new technologies and medications are introduced regularly. There is always a possibility that a terminally ill patient can be cured.
- Response to the entry starting with “National legislation should not legitimize the selling of human organs. There is a donation process already in place…”
- I agree that the existing donation system is sufficient as it brings a certain order to the terrain of human organ selling. You provide valuable arguments concerning the practical side while I would pay more attention to ethical aspects. The idea of developing the market for human organs is unethical and even hazardous. The issues of equality also become more pronounced as the rich will still have a privileged position while the poor may be prone to violence.
- Response to the entry starting with “The establishment of national registration of live donors should not be made because of those donors…”
- I also think that people on the list may have various issues that can decrease their quality of life. However, I am more concerned about confidentiality problems. No system is safe, and personal details can be stolen. People may even be in danger as they can become a target of some kind of hunt.
Response to Discussion 1
- Response to the entry starting with “Euthanasia, mercy killing, death with dignity, physician-assisted suicide: none of these should be legitimized…”
- You raise many important questions related to people’s faith. Therefore, if the legislation is developed someday, it should ensure that religious and cultural aspects will be addressed. Although each case or patient’s story is unique, it is pivotal to make sure that the feelings of people will not be hurt.
- Response to the entry starting with “I do not believe in legalizing the selling of human organs…”
- I agree that human organ selling is in contrast to various religious beliefs and can be compared to human trafficking. However, my major concern is related to safety issues as the legitimization of human organ selling can lead to the development of the market where human lives will not be valued high. People may be killed for their organs.
- Response to the entry starting with “I am unsure where I stand on this issue. I am an organ donor…”
- I agree that proper regulation has to be in place. If such a list is created, it can reduce waiting times and help in addressing various bureaucratic issues. However, I am still preoccupied with data protection and confidentiality.
Response to Reply Question 2
- Response to the entry starting with “In states where physician-assisted suicide is illegal, doctors should not be prosecuted…”
- I agree that the value of human life can never be identified as it is priceless. It is essential to exhaust all the available resources before making the decisions related to euthanasia, and the patients or their close ones are the ones to decide. The discussion of resources is also rather relevant as it is very true that some people (fighting for their lives) may be saved instead of maintaining the life of a person who does not want to live.
Bhardwaj, D. (2017). Wife of a Hyderabad-origin man donates his organs, saves five lives in Texas. The Better India. Web.
Leming, M. R., & Dickinson, G. E. (2015). Understanding dying, death, and bereavement. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.
Patel, T. (2018). Organ donation goes digital: Real-time updates on waiting list coming soon! The Better India. Web.