The Instigator
Arganger
Pro (for)
The Contender
Kateasaurus
Con (against)

There is no such thing as a mercy killing

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Kateasaurus has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/10/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 642 times Debate No: 102975
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (0)

 

Arganger

Pro

Anywhere it calls a murder a mercy killing, the reality is this: a hate crime. Calling a hate crime a mercy killing gives way to much sympathy to the killer, and devalues the victim. It also often affects the verdict and gives the murderer a break, while reinforcing the idea that the group of people the victim is from is inherently worth less.

I am mostly referring to in cases of parents or caregivers murdering a disabled person.
Kateasaurus

Con

There is most definitely a such thing as mercy killing. Say you're walking in the forest and you see a man, barely hanging on to his life. He's in pain and there is nothing you can do to help him. Even if he somehow manages to get medical attention he is going to be in pain for the rest of his life. There most likely won't be a day where he wakes up not in agonizing pain, not wishing that his life was over already. In my opinion, the best thing you can do for this man is end it right then and there. It's harsh and could be seen as cruel, but putting this man out of his misery could be one of the few useful things you could do for him.
Debate Round No. 1
Arganger

Pro

To urge on someone to death, instead of giving them a shot isn't merciful. Killing them there is abandoning any hope for them. For pain the entire life, those who actually deal with it would disagree with you:

http://www.everydayhealth.com...

https://themighty.com...

If he survives and ends up with chronic pain, he doesn't have to want to die. Life isn't about comfort.

If the chances of him living are none, the best thing you can do is just be there. Stay and make his death as comfortable as possible- without being the one to kill him.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Arganger 1 year ago
Arganger
I have reposted this debate if you want to accept
Posted by Arganger 1 year ago
Arganger
Give me a few days and I will
Posted by Knaveslayer99 1 year ago
Knaveslayer99
I would love to challenge you to this debate if you would be happy to receate this.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
killed the cow before I started to eat it..
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
The other example is killing someone before they turn into a zombie. But that's not really a real life scenario.
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
No there's no problem with you choosing this. Now you're getting closer to what actually matters which is that life has value even in a severely degenerative state, because choosing how valuable life is based on subjective criteria is never a good reason to end a life. I was just challenging you because it seemed like you were focusing on specific happenings and not the entirety of the resolution, which concerns all things that my be considered a mercy killing. I just chose the one most people will go for as their prime example.
Posted by Love.zombie 1 year ago
Love.zombie
I mean it honestly depends on the situation. Like my Mother was an nurse at a hospital. She watched this man suffering and in pain. The doctors wouldn't give the man water. Or anything. They said if he had anything it would kill him. So she wouldn't be the man begged her for water all he wanted was water. So she gave him what he wanted. Did he die. She won't tell me but he knew he was going to doe
Posted by Arganger 1 year ago
Arganger
I'm actually not mostly talking about euthanasia at all once again, it's just that when either a patient cannot give an opinion physically on euthanasia, or their voice is ignored all together, it falls onto what I am talking about. I probably should've defined it in the debate, but it's too late.

Here's an example of an article on my focus: http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Some people have actually gotten away with murder all together because they convinced the world that the person was better off dead, or to much stress on them.

But the idea of someone's mental of physical state defining their quality of life is rarely accurate, and can lead to many bad things, including killings. People can be happy in just about any situation and letting people who probably have never experienced it decide if their life is "worth it" does nothing good for anyone. Considering the fact that you only have to go a few decades back and most disabled people, including probably me if I was born back then were either left to die or abandoned in abusive institutions, many disabled people fear for their lives with this attitude growing so common.

In fact the sagamihara massacre was thanks to this attitude.

Maybe I shouldn't of chosen this topic though, it's too close to me. I get a little to heated.
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
I think you need to specify your definition of mercy killing to be "any time a person is killed that creates a situation where it was more merciful to have killed that person than to have let them live." Which only includes what I mentioned in my opinion. There's no need to set up a straw man for mercy killing and attack it. Why not just attack forced euthanasia as forced euthanasia? I feel like you're unnecessarily attacking something out of place and not really for any reason either. Just attack forced euthanasia if that's what you have a prolem with.
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
Well you're equating the words killing with murder, when killing can be suicide or any taking of life. So you say "mercy killing" and immediately jump to murder, but I'm saying a mercy killing is any situation in which someone takes a life because the rest of life was going to be worse than death. Not that I think euthanasia should be used lightly, but there's some situations where people are so gone physically or mentally that their quality of life will never be anything above what one might consider hell. In those situations, physician assisted suicide may be considered a mercy killing, meaning that there is such a thing as a mercy killing.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.