I don't know about you, but I think this could possibly the craziest thing I have ever heard. British TV reporter Ray Gosling admits to killing his male lover and says that he would appreciate the fact he did. Gosling's lover evidently was fighting against AIDS and told Gosling that if the pain was to much to bear, his request is to kill him. Personally, I would never do such a thing for someone that is suffering from a crucial disease. My mother had Leukemia for 7 years and even if the pain was too much to handle, she would never ask that of anyone she loved or anyone that loved her. Cancer is a process if you believe it or not. Any type of cancer whether its a blood disease, a disease you are born with or any other type of terminal illness. You have steps that doctors recommend you take. If you choose that your life isn't important enough to hang on to, that is a personal choice. I think that getting someone else involved could possibly destruct their life as well as other lives around.
Surprisingly, there has been a number of cases with the same issue. Evidently, a mother in January was cleared of all charges after she helped her sick daughter die. Also, a mother was sentenced to 9 years in prison after injecting her brain damaged son with Heroin.
Seeing case like these with a very different approach makes it tough to decide what is wrong in wrong.
What do you think? I like hearing other opinions!
Wow. That's insane, to say the least. What’s possibly even weirder is way he described it. It makes it seem like the guy told him to kill him at some indefinite time in the future, then the reporter just decided to do it one night. Weird.
ReplyDeleteIt all reminds me of Dr. Kevorkian, the guy who assisted about 130 patients in bringing about their own deaths. Apparently, he was tried more than a few times, but since the "patients" all pressed the button resulting in their own deaths, no charges could ever stick. Even the public supported him, at least until he actually administered the injection himself for one guy. But again, it was a weird case, since he only injected him because the man wasn’t powerful enough to do it himself. But I’m sure videotaping it and sending it in to 60 Minutes didn’t help matters.
It all brings up the weird legality of it all. Kevorkian wasn't ever convicted for the deaths until he actually administered the injection, but he was certainly tried for them. I think his phrase, "My aim in helping the patient was not to cause death. My aim was to end suffering. It's got to be decriminalized." He's an interesting character, to say the least, and his mantra of “death is not a crime” shows how he sort of distanced himself from their deaths. He wasn’t enabling it in his mind, he was just a bystander.
But yeah, I know what you mean. I could never do anything like that.
It does seem like an oxymoron doesn't it? That you would kill someone out of mercy or kindness? I am personally incapable of ever facilitating someone's request for me to end their life....even if they are suffering. It would kill me not to be able to do anything to ease their pain but ending their life is something that I could never do, especially if they were my own blood. When I think about it, I can't recall a single relative who has passed on who didn't suffer in one way or another. That is the nature of getting older, and it is something that will affect all of us once we start aging.
ReplyDeleteIt is a heart breaking process to see our loved ones suffer as they begin to pass on but obliging their requests to end their lives really seems like selfishness on their part. As Kelsie mentioned in her post, the ones who inevitably suffer are those who facilitate the deaths of those who seek "relase."
I will have to keep this in mind when I start aging and I begin to feel the pain of the process.
This article made me think of the same things that Kevin commented on: Kevorkian, the “killer’s” vague justification to kill, etc. Aside from any bizarre intricacies of this particular case, I think that “mercy killing” can definitely be justifiable and moral. If an individual no longer values their own life enough to continue living (ex: not being able to cope with the, then, inevitable pain associated with it) it is their choice. They are the most closely affected and connected with their own lives; the choice is self-regarding. Likewise, it is the choice of any friend or loved one to go along with the “mercy killing.” Where both sides consent (it doesn’t seem entirely clear in this particular case), there are no blatant victims, and if there are, it is the responsibility and risk taken by both parties. On the other hand, I’m not sure if I’d be able to do it. Ideally, I’d like to think that I am strong minded enough to be able to help a loved or friend in clear need, but I don’t think I’d be able to fully grasp the emotions that correlate with such a decision unless I were actually in that situation.
ReplyDeleteSo far this conversation revolves around “mercy killing” for those in incredible pain and/or terminal illness. But I think it is relevant to admit that I think other “consensual killing” should also be permissible. Like I said previously, the choice is self-regarding, by both parties. Aside from cases involving any form of coercion (deceit or physical force), consensual killing is justified by the same reasons as “mercy killing.”