PREVENTING MERCY KILLING

    Mercy killings occur in every known culture of the world.
Mercy killings are usually committed by close relatives and/or friends of the deceased.
And often death was earnestly requested by the deceased before death.

    The news media regularly cover cases of mercy killing.
And generally such coverage has been sympathetic toward the family.

    When one person was responsible for the mercy killing,
that person might be changed with a violation of law
---perhaps even first-degree murder,
since it was a pre-meditated act of killing another human being.
But juries everywhere in the world (wherever 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 law,
the peers on the jury believe
that the one who committed the act of mercy should not be punished
---precisely because the motives were love and mercy
rather than hatred and malice.

    Prosecutors who have failed a few times to get convictions for mercy killings
sometimes decide not to prosecute any further 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 their might be a better chance
of winning a conviction from a jury of the murderer's peers.

    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 this 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:
"Four Differences between Mercy Killing and Merciful Death":
http://www.tc.umn.edu/%7Eparkx032/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 as a society 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 we have wisely considered all of the alternatives.

    And when the prosecutor sees all the documents the family has collected,
prosecutor might decided that the case is
so overwhelmingly in favor of the possible defendants
that it would be a foolish waste of the tax-payers' 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 as many neutral persons as can be assembled,
will convince all open-minded people
that death at this time will be better for the dying person
than death at a later time.

    This website is not recommending mercy killing in any way.
And the very process of attempting to fulfill some of the following safeguards
might result in postponing the proposed death
because it might have been premature.

    Fulfilling these safeguards will make the death-planning process more open.
And others who are asked for their opinions
will often have some creative alternatives to suggest,
which will make the mercy killing unnecessary.

     Or put another way, these safeguards for life-ending decisions
can transform what would have been a criminal act---mercy killing---
into a somewhat later merciful death---which should not be a crime.
Desperate family members can find help from the following people
to organize the needed relief for the patient
in a way that all open-minded people can approve.

    These safeguards are arranged beginning with the most powerful and effective:

STATEMENTS FROM FAMILY MEMBERS

            AFFIRMING OR QUESTIONING THE CHOSEN DEATH

STATEMENTS FROM ADVOCATES FOR DISADVANTAGED GROUPS
             IF INVITED BY THE PATIENT AND/OR THE PROXIES

PHYSICIAN'S STATEMENT OF CONDITION AND PROGNOSIS
           
INDEPENDENT PHYSICIAN REVIEWS THE CONDITION AND PROGNOSIS

HOSPITAL OR HOSPICE ENROLLMENT

PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSULTANT EVALUATES
           THE PATIENT'S ABILITY TO MAKE MEDICAL DECISIONS

ADVANCE DIRECTIVE FOR MEDICAL CARE

REQUESTS FOR DEATH FROM THE PATIENT

INFORMED CONSENT FROM THE PATIENT

UNBEARABLE SUFFERING

   
ETHICS COMMITTEE REVIEWS THE LIFE-ENDING DECISION

A MEMBER OF THE CLERGY APPROVES OR QUESTIONS THE CHOICE FOR DEATH

RELIGIOUS OR OTHER MORAL PRINCIPLES
            APPLIED TO THIS LIFE-ENDING DECISION


REPORT TO THE PROSECUTOR BEFORE THE DEATH TAKES PLACE

CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR CAUSING PREMATURE DEATH

COMPLETE RECORDING AND SHARING OF ALL MATERIAL FACTS AND OPINIONS

THE DEATH-PLANNING COORDINATOR ORGANIZES THE SAFEGUARDS

    If these 17 safeguards do not seem sufficient to discourage mercy killings,
there are a dozen more listed in the complete catalog of safeguards:
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~parkx032/SG-CAT.html.
Each of these descriptions contains a few paragraphs
explaining how that safeguard will discourage
all forms of premature death.


Created March 22, 2007; revised 4-12-2007


Go to other dangers, mistakes, & abuses of the right-to-die.





The views and opinions expressed in this page are strictly those of the page author.
The contents of this page have not been reviewed or approved by the University of Minnesota.