PREVENTING
MERCY-KILLING
Mercy-killings occur in every known culture of the world.
Relatives
(and sometimes close friends) of the suffering patient
take it
upon themselves to end that suffering by killing
the patient.
Sometimes the death was earnestly requested by the deceased.
The news media regularly cover cases of mercy-killing.
And often
such coverage has been sympathetic
toward the family.
When one person was responsible for the mercy-killing,
that person
might be charged with a violation of law
perhaps
even murder in the first-degree
since
it was a pre-meditated act of killing another human being.
But
juries everywhere in the world (where juries are used)
have often
acquitted
family members charged with mercy-killing
because the jury can
deeply understand
the desire to help a loved one to end his or
her suffering.
Even if it might technically be a violation of a
poorly-drafted law,
the peers on the jury believe that the
relative
who committed the act of mercy should
not be punished
precisely
because the motives were love
and mercy
rather than hatred
and malice.
When cases are tried by judges rather than juries,
judges can
also understand the merciful motives.
And often very light
sentences (or suspended sentences) are imposed.
Prosecutors who have failed to get convictions for
mercy-killings
sometimes decide not
to prosecute
similar cases,
at least when there is no way to suggest that the
'criminal'
was doing anything to harm
the loved one who is now dead.
If the prosecutor can show
financial gain for the 'murderer',
then there might be a better
chance
of winning a conviction from a jury
made up of peers
of both the 'victim' and the helper.
And
sometimes public prosecutors have established open criteria
for
deciding whether or not to charge someone with assisting death.
See
the tests used by the prosecutors in England and
Wales:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/aws-website-jamesleonardpark---freelibrary-3puxk/SG-UK10.html
Public thinking about the right-to-die
has created a new climate
for considering situations
in which loving spouses help their
life-partners to die.
And if we formalize such thinking,
perhaps
a new concept will emerge: merciful
death.
"Merciful
death"
is a confusing expression,
since it seems so close to
mercy-killing.
And
perhaps further debate concerning the right-to-die
will produce a
better expression than "merciful death".
For the present, we will attempt to separate
mercy-killing
from merciful
death in
the following four ways:
1. Mercy-killing harms
the victim.
Merciful
death benefits
the patient.
2.
Mercy-killing is
not based
on reason.
Merciful
death is
based on
reason.
3.
Mercy-killing is
often
capricious.
Merciful
death is
well-planned.
4.
Mercy-killing is
regrettable
and lamentable.
Merciful
death is
admirable
and laudable.
If you would
like to examine these differences more deeply, read:
Will this
Death be a "Mercy-Killing" or a "Merciful
Death"?
https://s3.amazonaws.com/aws-website-jamesleonardpark---freelibrary-3puxk/CY-MK-MD.html
The safeguards linked
below constitute the operational
methods
by
which several other persons can participate
in examining the
proposed death to see whether
it would be a mercy-killing
(harmful criminal behavior)
or a merciful
death
(helpful compassionate behavior).
We can continue to disapprove
and punish mercy-killings
while
at the same time approving
and not punishing merciful deaths.
SAFEGUARDS
TO DISCOURAGE MERCY-KILLING
The following 17 safeguards call upon the considered opinions
of a
wide
variety of neutral persons
who can help
to separate those decisions that would result in
harmful
mercy-killings
from
those decisions that would result in helpful
merciful deaths.
Even before any laws are changed to incorporate such
safeguards,
families considering ending the misery of their loved
ones
can fulfill the most appropriate of the following
safeguards
in their good-faith efforts to decide whether
the
planned death would be a merciful
death or
a mercy-killing.
In some cases, consulting others in the process of fulfilling the
safeguards
will convince the family NOT to proceed with the plan
for death.
But if fulfilling the safeguards convinces everyone
involved
that this proposed death would be at the best time
not
too soon and not too late
then
the family could proceed with the life-ending decisions
with the
assurance that they have wisely considered all of the
alternatives.
And when the prosecutor sees
all the documents the family has collected,
the prosecutor might
decide that the case is
so overwhelmingly in favor of the
possible defendants
that it would be a foolish waste of the
taxpayers' money
to prosecute any of the family members
who
were involved in the merciful end of their loved one.
This will
especially be the case if the family
reports
to the prosecutor before the death takes place.
See that
safeguard linked below.
But even a partial record of the plans for death,
approved by the
various neutral persons mentioned in the safeguards,
will convince
all open-minded people
that death
at this time
will be better for the dying person
than death
at some later time.
This writing is not recommending mercy-killing in any way.
And the
very process of fulfilling some of the following safeguards
might
result in postponing
the proposed death
because it might have been somewhat
premature.
Fulfilling safeguards will make
the death-planning process more open.
And others who are asked for
their opinions about the proposed death
might have some creative
alternatives to suggest,
which could change the plans for
death.
Or put another way, these
safeguards for life-ending decisions
can transform what might have
been a criminal actmercy-killing
into
a somewhat later merciful
deathwhich
would not
be a crime.
Desperate family members can find help from the
following people
to organize the needed relief for the patient
in
ways that all open-minded people can approve.
These safeguards begin with the most powerful and effective.
The
blue
link
links to a complete explanation of that safeguard.
The red
comments
explain how that procedure
deals with the specific danger of
mercy-killing.
Which safeguards for life-ending decisions will
prevent
mercy-killing?
STATEMENTS
FROM FAMILY MEMBERS
AFFIRMING
OR
QUESTIONING CHOOSING DEATH
Especially
when some family members
have reservations about the proposed
death,
their written statements can help others involved to
review their thinking,
asking again whether death
at this time
is the best option.
STATEMENTS
FROM ADVOCATES FOR DISADVANTAGED GROUPS
IF
INVITED BY THE PATIENT AND/OR THE PROXIES
Consultants who have been selected to protect vulnerable
patients
will be especially aware of the danger of rationalizing
malice.
If they
can be convinced that death
now
is better than death
later,
others
who are more distant will have greater reason to believe
that the
proposed death would be a wise merciful
death
rather
than a tragic and regrettable mercy-killing.
PHYSICIAN'S
STATEMENT OF CONDITION AND PROGNOSIS
When a physician issues a statement about the patient's
condition,
this
will help to separate foolish
mercy-killings
from
wise
proposed merciful deaths.
Sometimes
family members who commit mercy-killings
did
not really understand the medical facts.
INDEPENDENT
PHYSICIAN REVIEWS THE CONDITION AND PROGNOSIS
Also, when an independent physician creates a statement
that
includes a similar prognosis for the patient,
this
would be another professional evaluation,
which
will obviously be relevant for separating
a
possible
mercy-killing
from a proposed
merciful death.
HOSPITAL
OR HOSPICE ENROLLMENT
Mercy-killing is not easy in a heath-care institution.
And
when the hospital or hospice program has examined the
alternatives
and
also agreed that merciful death is the best course of action,
then
distant detractors can be assured that this death was wisely chosen.
Did the hospital or hospice cooperate in the plans for merciful
death?
PSYCHOLOGICAL
CONSULTANT EVALUATES
THE
PATIENT'S
ABILITY TO MAKE MEDICAL DECISIONS
When
the patient is still able to make meaningful medical decisions,
then
if the patient chooses death,
it
would be called a voluntary
death
rather than a merciful
death.
But
if after making some plans for death
the
patient then
becomes unable to carry them forward
(perhaps
because of the progression of the disease itself),
then
the proxies can take the patient's earlier decisions
into
account in considering death for this patient.
We should not lose
the right-to-die
merely because we lose the immediate capacity to
end our own lives.
See:
"Do
I
Lose the Right-to-Die When I Lose
Consciousness?".
ADVANCE
DIRECTIVE FOR MEDICAL CARE
The Advance
Directive written by the patient
should include some discussion of
the possibility of choosing death.
If the patient gave approval in
advance,
it will be much easier for the proxies to carry forward
the plans
first articulated by the patient himself or
herself.
REQUESTS
FOR DEATH FROM THE PATIENT
And if the
patient explicitly requests death
under the final health
circumstances,
then this is even stronger reason to choose death
if all other factors also point in the same direction.
INFORMED
CONSENT FROM THE PATIENT
If the patient
himself or herself has given informed consent
for the plan for
shortening the process of dying,
then distant detractors can be
more comfortable
with the chosen pathway towards
death.
UNBEARABLE
SUFFERING
Intolerable suffering might
be the basic reason for choosing death.
The greater the suffering,
the less likelihood
that the chosen death will be premature.
ETHICS
COMMITTEE REVIEWS THE LIFE-ENDING DECISION
When an institutional ethics committee approves the merciful
death,
more
distant critics should be assured that this was not
a mercy-killing.
What
prosecutor would bring charges against anyone
if the death had
been approved in advance by an ethics committee?
A
MEMBER OF THE CLERGY
APPROVES
OR
QUESTIONS CHOOSING DEATH
And when even a member of the clergy approves the merciful death,
the
worries of distant doubters should be allayed.
If a minister or
priest issues a written opinion approving the plans for death,
most
religious people will be convinced that it will not
be a mercy-killing.
RELIGIOUS
OR OTHER MORAL PRINCIPLES
APPLIED
TO THIS LIFE-ENDING DECISION
When the
patient embraces specific moral principles
and when these have
been appropriately applied to the situation at hand,
then all
concerned should be assured that the chosen death
was a merciful
death,
not a mercy-killing.
REVIEW
BY THE
PROSECUTOR (OR OTHER LAWYER)
BEFORE
THE DEATH
TAKES PLACE
And, certainly, if the public official
who would be responsible
for bringing any charges of mercy-killing
also agrees
that the proposed death would be a merciful death,
then
there is little or no reason
for people who do not know the
details of this terminal care
to worry that it might have been a
mercy-killing.
CIVIL
AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR CAUSING PREMATURE DEATH
When sanctions remain in place,
persons who might otherwise be
tempted to commit a mercy-killing
will pause before they act.
It
is better to preview
the plans for death,
creating even several pages of fulfilled safeguards,
rather
than go ahead with a ill-planned mercy-killing
and
afterwards spend several years in jail.
COMPLETE
RECORDING AND SHARING OF ALL MATERIAL FACTS AND OPINIONS
When those who are planning the chosen death
make sure that all of
the most relevant safeguards have been fulfilled,
this is the
operational procedure for separating
an illegal
mercy-killing
from a wise
and compassionate merciful death.
THE
DEATH-PLANNING COORDINATOR ORGANIZES THE SAFEGUARDS
And if an experienced death-planning coordinator
has been employed
in making sure that the safeguards are fulfilled,
then all others
can be more confident that
the chosen death was a merciful
death, not a mercy-killing.
If
these 17 safeguards do not seem sufficient to discourage
mercy-killings,
there are a dozen more listed in the complete
catalog of
safeguards:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/aws-website-jamesleonardpark---freelibrary-3puxk/SG-CAT.html
Each
of these descriptions contains a few paragraphs
explaining how
that safeguard-procedure will discourage
all forms of premature death.
Created
March 22, 2007; revised 4-12-2007; 11-5-2008; 1-24-2009; 2-6-2009;
1-31-2010;
2-25-2011; 12-22-2011; 1-27-2012; 2-21-2012;
3-27-2012; 3-18-2012; 9-11-2012;
4-24-2013; 6-20-2013;
7-17-2014;10-10-2014; 7-3-2015; 5-18-2017; 8-23-2018; 5-22-2020;
This
worry about the possibility of mercy-killing has become Chapter 8 of
How
to Die:
Safeguards for Life-Ending Decisions:
"Preventing
Mercy-Killing".
Go
to other dangers,
mistakes, & abuses of the right-to-die.
The most closely
related of these worries would be:
Controlling
Free-Lance 'Angels of Death'.
Go to
the beginning of this website
James
Leonard ParkFree
Library