mercy killing argumentative essay

You are using an outdated browser. Upgrade your browser today or install Google Chrome Frame to better experience this site.

Mercy killing debate: should euthanasia be legalized?

Source: This image was created for netivist.org. If you want to use it you simply need to  attribute it by linking  to this page or to  https://netivist.org . Thanks

Many new cases of physician-assisted suicide or mercy killing are emerging in Western countries. Some of them have regulated it. Do you think euthanasia  should be legalized? Under what circumstances? Do we have the right to die as we choose?

Mercy Killing Debate

Euthanasia or physician- assisted suicide , also know as mercy killing , is becoming a prominent public debate . The implications of legalizing assisted suicide are wide-ranging from a  medical , legal, political and ethical point of view. 

The term euthanasia means "good death" in Greek. With the progress of medicine in multiple domains (e.g. anesthesiology, pain medicine) came the problem of the decision of death. Some countries, like for instance Belgium, The Netherlands, and some states in the USA, including New Mexico, Montana, Oregon and Vermont, have passed laws allowing voluntary euthanasia. But the legality of choosing the moment of death is an extremely controversial subject because it appeals to personal views on ethics and morality and is highly emotional and linked to religious beliefs. Most countries still consider euthanasia a crime . Some people consider allowing euthanasia to risk opening a slippery slope where killing may become more common, and risk the killing of people misinformed or against their will. These people also worry about the risk of killing any person with some sort of suffering (e.g. mental disability, physical handicap). Supporters of euthanasia claim it is an individual right to decide when to die, to keep control of their fate when it is still possible.

Types of euthanasia

There are different types of euthanasia according to whether the will of the patient has been expressed.

• Voluntary euthanasia : to intentionally end the life of someone who asked for it to relieve physical pain and psychological suffering. It can be considered as assisted suicide. Patient gives informed consent. An official signed document in which one declares one wants to be euthanized.
• Non-voluntary euthanasia : consent of the patient is unavailable. Usually family members are asked about the possible will of the patient as well as their own wish.
• Involuntary euthanasia is against the patient’s will and is illegal, considered as murder, in most countries. 

Euthanasia can also be divided into:

• Passive euthanasia:  when the family or medical staff withhold life support (e.g. medication, respiratory machine, feeding or liquids) from the patient.
• Active euthanasia: when the patient is administered (e.g. injected) a lethal dose of any chemical substance to end her/life. 

And you? Do you support  mercy killing ?   Should euthanasia be legalized? Before voting and commenting you may want to consider the pros and cons of legalizing physician-assisted suicide (see below).

Watch this video on the mercy killing debate

Euthanasia pros and cons

• Dying with dignity: some people are deeply sick, postrated and unable to do even the most basic human actions, such as eating, changing clothes, washing themselves or using the toilets. They often find their state degrading and humilliating and may prefer to die with dignity and stop being a burden to those around them.
• End to human suffering: people with terminal illness and no chance of recovery often suffer great physical pain and emotional distress. Ending their lives, if they wish so, can spare them from an unnecessary suffering.
• Legal certainty: according to research conducted in the Netherlands, regulating euthanasia has improved legal certainty and has contributed to the carefulness of assisted suicide.
• Healthcare spending: keeping alive terminal patients who are suffering and not able to recover is also very expensive and detracts medical resources from other patients who could heal or need treatments. Families of the patients who want to end their lives may also face bills which can very negatively affect their finances.
• Autonomy and self-determination: opposing to someone's will of ending her/his life goes against that person freedom and right of deciding on their future.
• Moral and ethical problems: physician assisted death clashes with religious beliefs. Many religions state that human life end should not be decided by people but by God. 
• Misunderstandings and errors: there are cases in which doctors have wrongfully diagnosed a terminal disease or have thought that a patient is without hope of recovery. However, medicine evolves and cures may be found. Some new treatments may become effective were others failed. So terminating someone's life even with her/his consent may be a mistake.
• Legalizing murder: regulating euthanasia for some extreme cases may mean crossing a line. It has been argued that this could be a slippery slope which could end up with the legalization of an increasing number of cases for ending a life for utilitarian reasons.
• Abuse: if euthanasia is legal, there may be an incentive to exaggerate the negative condition of patients so that the family decides to "disconnect" them so that the hospital or insurance company saves money.
• Complexity: even if countries decide to legalize euthanasia, there may be great difficulties in agreeing with the cases and situations in which these mercy killings are acceptable and with the legal procedures that should be respected.

Taking all these pros and cons into consideration and the experience in the territories where it has been legalized, what would you recommend doing?

You may also want to participate in our debates on the legalization of  cannabis , prostitution , and  same sex marriage .

Vote to see result and collect 1 XP. Your vote is anonymous. If you change your mind, you can change your vote simply by clicking on another option.

Voting results

New to netivist?

Join with confidence, netivist is completely advertisement free. You will not receive any promotional materials from third parties.

Or sign in with your favourite Social Network:

Join the debate

In order to join the debate you must be logged in.

Already have an account on netivist? Just login . New to netivist? Create your account for free .

 Report Abuse and Offensive language

Was there any kind of offensive or inappropriate language used in this comment.

If you feel this user's conduct is unappropriate, please report this comment and our moderaters will review its content and deal with this matter as soon as possible.

NOTE: Your account might be penalized should we not find any wrongdoing by this user. Only use this feature if you are certain this user has infringed netivist's Terms of Service .

Our moderators will now review this comment and act accordingly. If it contains abusive or inappropriate language its author will be penalized.

Posting Comment

Your comment is being posted. This might take a few seconds, please wait.

Error Posting Comment

  error.

We are having trouble saving your comment. Please try again .

Most Voted Debates

Start a Debate

Would you like to create a debate and share it with the netivist community? We will help you do it!

Found a technical issue?

Are you experiencing any technical problem with netivist? Please let us know!

Help netivist

Help netivist continue running free!

Please consider making a small donation today. This will allow us to keep netivist alive and available to a wide audience and to keep on introducing new debates and features to improve your experience.

• What is netivist?
• Entertainment
• Top Debates
• Top Campaigns
• Provide Feedback

Follow us on social media:

 Share by Email

There was an error...

Email successfully sent to:

Join with confidence, netivist is completely advertisement free You will not recive any promotional materials from third parties

 Join netivist

Already have a netivist account?

If you already created your netivist account, please log in using the button below.

If you are new to netivist, please create your account for free and start collecting your netivist points!

You just leveled up!

Congrats you just reached a new level on Netivist. Keep up the good work.

Together we can make a difference

Follow us and don't miss out on the latest debates!

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

UPSC Coaching, Study Materials, and Mock Exams

Enroll in ClearIAS UPSC Coaching Join Now Log In

Call us: +91-9605741000

Euthanasia – Arguments in Favour and Against

Last updated on April 7, 2024 by ClearIAS Team

Euthanasia is the deliberate act of ending a person’s life to relieve them of suffering. It is a complex and ethically sensitive topic that has sparked debates and discussions worldwide. There are different forms of euthanasia, and it is regulated differently in various countries.

Euthanasia (“good death”) is the practice of intentionally ending a life to relieve pain and suffering. It is also known as ‘mercy killing’.

In many countries, there is a divisive public controversy over the moral, ethical, and legal issues of euthanasia. Euthanasia is categorized in different ways, which include voluntary, non-voluntary, or involuntary. Euthanasia is also classified into active and passive Euthanasia.

Table of Contents

Voluntary, Non-Voluntary, and Involuntary Euthanasia

• Voluntary euthanasia: It is conducted with the consent of the patient and is termed voluntary euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia is legal in some countries. Jurisdictions, where euthanasia is legal, include the Netherlands, Colombia, Belgium, and Luxembourg.
• Non-Voluntary euthanasia: It is conducted where the consent of the patient is unavailable and is termed non-voluntary euthanasia. Non-voluntary euthanasia is illegal in all countries. Examples include child euthanasia, which is illegal worldwide but decriminalized under certain specific circumstances in the Netherlands under the Groningen Protocol.
• Involuntary euthanasia: It is conducted against the will of the patient and is termed involuntary euthanasia. Involuntary euthanasia is usually considered murder.

Passive vs Active euthanasia

Voluntary, non-voluntary, and involuntary euthanasia can all be further divided into passive or active variants.

• Passive euthanasia entails the withholding of common treatments, such as antibiotics, necessary for the continuance of life.
• Active euthanasia entails the use of lethal substances or forces, such as administering a lethal injection, to kill and is the most controversial means.

Euthanasia debate

Euthanasia raises profound ethical and moral questions. Supporters argue that it can be a compassionate and dignified way to end suffering, particularly in cases of terminal illness.

Opponents argue that it raises significant ethical concerns, including the potential for abuse, coercion, and mistakes in diagnosing terminal conditions.

Arguments in Favor

Historically, the euthanasia debate has tended to focus on several key concerns. According to euthanasia opponent Ezekiel Emanuel, proponents of euthanasia have presented four main arguments:

• that people have a right to self-determination, and thus should be allowed to choose their fate
• assisting a subject to die might be a better choice than requiring that they continue to suffer
• the distinction between passive euthanasia, which is often permitted, and active euthanasia, which is not substantive (or that the underlying principle–the doctrine of double effect–is unreasonable or unsound);
• permitting euthanasia will not necessarily lead to unacceptable consequences. Pro-euthanasia activists often point to countries like the Netherlands and Belgium, and states like Oregon, where euthanasia has been legalized, to argue that it is mostly unproblematic.
• Constitution of India: ‘Right to life’ is a natural right embodied in Article 21 but euthanasia/suicide is an unnatural termination or extinction of life and, therefore, incompatible and inconsistent with the concept of ‘right to life’. The State must protect life and the physician’s duty to provide care and not to harm patients. Supreme Court in Gian Kaur Case 1996 has held that the right to life under Article 21 does not include the right to die.
• Caregiver’s burden: Right-to-die supporters argue that people who have an incurable, degenerative, disabling, or debilitating condition should be allowed to die in dignity. This argument is further defended by those, who have chronic debilitating illness even though it is not terminal such as severe mental illness. The majority of such petitions are filed by the sufferers or family members or their caretakers. The caregiver’s burden is huge and cuts across various financial, emotional, time, physical, mental, and social domains.
• Refusing care: The right to refuse medical treatment is well recognized in law, including medical treatment that sustains or prolongs life. For example, a patient suffering from blood cancer can refuse treatment or deny feeds through a nasogastric tube. Recognition of the right to refuse treatment gives way to passive euthanasia.
• Encouraging organ transplantation: Mercy killing in terminally ill patients provides an opportunity to advocate for organ donation. This, in turn, will help many patients with organ failure waiting for transplantation. Not only does euthanasia give the ‘Right to die‘ for the terminally ill, but also the ‘Right to life‘ for the organ needy patients.

Arguments against

Emanuel argues that there are four major arguments presented by opponents of euthanasia:

• not all deaths are painful;
• alternatives, such as cessation of active treatment, combined with the use of effective pain relief, are available;
• the distinction between active and passive euthanasia is morally significant; and
• legalizing euthanasia will place society on a slippery slope, which will lead to unacceptable consequences
• Euthanasia weakens society’s respect for the sanctity of life.
• Euthanasia might not be in a person’s best interests, for example, getting old-aged parents killed for property will.
• Belief in God’s miracle of curing the terminally ill.
• The prospect of a discovery of a possible cure for the disease shortly.
• Proper palliative care makes euthanasia unnecessary.
• There is no way of properly regulating euthanasia.
• Allowing euthanasia will lead to less good care for the terminally ill.
• Allowing euthanasia undermines the commitment of doctors and nurses to save lives.
• Euthanasia may become a cost-effective way to treat the terminally ill.
• Allowing euthanasia will discourage the search for new cures and treatments for the terminally ill.
• Euthanasia gives too much power to doctors.

Euthanasia in India

Passive euthanasia is legal in India. On 7 March 2011, the Supreme Court of India legalized passive euthanasia using the withdrawal of life support to patients in a permanent vegetative state. The decision was made as part of the verdict in a case involving Aruna Shanbaug, who had been in a Persistent Vegetative State (PVS) for 42 years until she died in 2015.

The Aruna Shanbaug Case

In March 2011, the Supreme Court of India passed a historic judgment permitting Passive Euthanasia in the country. This judgment was passed after Pinki Virani’s plea to the highest court in December 2009 under the Constitutional provision of “Next Friend”. It’s a landmark law which places the power of choice in the hands of the individual, over government, medical or religious control which sees all suffering as “destiny”. The Supreme Court specified two irreversible conditions to permit Passive Euthanasia Law in its 2011 Law:

• The brain-dead for whom the ventilator can be switched off.
• Those in a Persistent Vegetative State (PVS) for whom the feed can be tapered out and pain-managing palliatives be added, according to laid-down international specifications.

The same judgment law also asked for the scrapping of 309 , the code that penalizes those who survive suicide attempts. In December 2014, the Government of India declared its intention.

PIL filed by Common Cause

However, on 25 February 2014, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India termed the judgment in the Aruna Shanbaug case to be ‘inconsistent in itself’ and referred the issue of euthanasia to its five-judge Constitution bench on a PIL filed by Common Cause , which case is the basis of the current debate.

Then, the CJI referred to an earlier Constitution Bench judgment which, in the Gian Kaur case , “did not express any binding view on the subject of euthanasia; rather it reiterated that the legislature would be the appropriate authority to bring change.” Though that judgment said the right to live with dignity under Article 21 was inclusive of the right to die with dignity, it did not conclude the validity of euthanasia, be it active or passive.

“So, the only judgment that holds the field about euthanasia in India is the ruling in the Aruna Shanbaug case, which upholds the validity of passive euthanasia and lays down an elaborate procedure for executing the same on the wrong premise that the Constitution Bench in Gian Kaur had upheld the same,” the CJI said.

Common Cause Case: In 2018, the Supreme Court issued a significant judgment in the Common Cause case. The court recognized the right to die with dignity as a fundamental right and permitted passive euthanasia. It provided guidelines for the process and conditions under which passive euthanasia could be allowed.

Government’s endorsement of Passive Euthanasia

On December 23, 2014, the Government of India endorsed and re-validated the Passive Euthanasia judgment law in a Press Release, after stating in the Rajya Sabha as follows: The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, while dismissing the plea for mercy killing in a particular case, laid down comprehensive guidelines to process cases relating to passive euthanasia.

Thereafter, the matter of mercy killing was examined in consultation with the Ministry of Law and Justice and it has been decided that since the Hon’ble Supreme Court has already laid down the guidelines, these should be followed and treated as law in such cases. At present, there is no legislation on this subject and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is binding on all.

The court rejected active euthanasia using lethal injection. In the absence of a law regulating euthanasia in India, the court stated that its decision becomes the law of the land until the Indian parliament enacts a suitable law. Active euthanasia, including the administration of lethal compounds to end life, is still illegal in India, and in most countries.

As India had no law about euthanasia, the Supreme Court’s guidelines are law until and unless Parliament passes legislation. The following guidelines were laid down:

• A decision has to be taken to discontinue life support either by the parents the spouse or other close relatives, or in the absence of any of them, such a decision can be taken even by a person or a body of persons acting as a next friend. It can also be taken by the doctors attending the patient. However, the decision should be taken bona fide in the best interest of the patient.
• Even if a decision is taken by the near relatives or doctors or next friend to withdraw life support, such a decision requires approval from the High Court concerned.
• When such an application is filled, the Chief Justice of the High Court should forthwith constitute a Bench of at least two Judges who should decide whether to approve or not. A committee of three reputed doctors to be nominated by the Bench, will report the condition of the patient. Before giving the verdict, a notice regarding the report should be given to the close relatives and the State. After hearing the parties, the High Court can give its verdict.

A law commission had proposed legislation on “passive euthanasia”, it said. According to the Centre, the decision to come out with a bill was taken after considering the directives of the apex court, the law commission’s 241st report, and a private member bill introduced in Parliament in 2014.

The Centre said that initially, a meeting was held under the chairmanship of B.P. Sharma, secretary in the Health and Family Welfare Ministry, on May 22, 2015, to examine the draft of The Medical Treatment of Terminally Ill Patients (Protection of Patients and Medical Practitioners) Bill and the draft of The Euthanasia (Regulation) Bill.

This move to introduce a bill is a welcome step to clear the grey areas in the Euthanasia debate. Students can also link to this issue while answering questions on:

• Judicial activism: SC framing laws when the parliament hasn’t. Just like the Visaka case.
• Ethical dilemma in Paper 4 .

In India,  euthanasia has no legal aspect , and there is no penal law yet introduced in the IPC that specifically deals with euthanasia.

• However, the Supreme Court of India legalized passive euthanasia in 2018 with some conditions, allowing patients to withdraw medical support if they go into an irreversible coma.
• Passive euthanasia is a matter of ‘living will’, and an adult in their conscious mind is permitted to refuse medical treatment or voluntarily decide not to take medical treatment to embrace death naturally, under certain conditions.
• Individuals are only allowed to draft a living will while in a normal state of health and mind.
• Active euthanasia remains illegal in India.

Read:  Living wills

Article by: Jishnu J Raju

Aim IAS, IPS, or IFS?

About ClearIAS Team

ClearIAS is one of the most trusted learning platforms in India for UPSC preparation. Around 1 million aspirants learn from the ClearIAS every month.

Our courses and training methods are different from traditional coaching. We give special emphasis on smart work and personal mentorship. Many UPSC toppers thank ClearIAS for our role in their success.

Download the ClearIAS mobile apps now to supplement your self-study efforts with ClearIAS smart-study training.

Reader Interactions

February 11, 2016 at 3:48 pm

excellent one..

February 24, 2016 at 8:34 pm

Giving passive euthanasia to a patient who is already dead (not literally) is a right choice.Its better than making them as well as others to suffer.

July 20, 2017 at 4:28 pm

so very true.

July 1, 2016 at 10:58 pm

If the patient does not wants to suffer and himself asking for euthanasia then voluntary euthanasia should be made legal because it will be difficult for him to live than to die. But in case of involuntary euthanasia, there should be some specific time limit upto which the patient’s relatives must wait for him to recover but if there is no improvement like in case of coma , after 7-10 years , there is less chances of the patient to recover. In such cases , involuntary euthanasia should be made legal.

March 16, 2017 at 12:37 pm

no it is not possible If the patient tends to recover over a period of time or suddenly he becomes normal then the involuntary euthanasia will become very dangerous

March 16, 2017 at 12:35 pm

Very Very Useful

June 26, 2018 at 8:12 am

Helpful source I can use to rely on research. Thank you so much, clear IAS.

May 17, 2019 at 9:58 pm

Thanku for quality content

May 23, 2020 at 10:27 pm

“Mercy Killing ” is a responsible debate . It mainly depends on persons will on his /her life.

July 2, 2020 at 2:26 pm

Euthanasia should not be accepted as there is always some hope for better.

May 24, 2021 at 11:57 am

If under Article 21 of the constitution, right to live with dignity is inclusive of right to die with dignity, then why should the provisions under the Euthanasia act be restricted to the old and dying patients. There are a lot of people in their 60s and 70s with limited financial resources, who feel neglected / unwanted by the family who would like to die with dignity rather than be dependent on their children or the other members of family. They may be in good health but would still like to self determine to end their life with dignity. In such cases the law should allow for such people to adopt active Euthanasia. Such people could be persuaded to donate their organs which will help save other lives.

August 25, 2021 at 9:40 am

euthanasia cannot be legalised because of its higher probability of misuse. whether it is for property, money or because of any family problem

August 4, 2022 at 12:11 pm

A thought for all: If you do not have a choice to life, i.e. choose to be born then how can choosing your own means of death, be fair or valid? Something you cannot create or re-created is not yours to manage. My say: God is the giver of life and He alone should take it. Our sufferings are a means of learning, loving, understanding and above all our closeness to Almighty God.

June 28, 2023 at 6:36 pm

ur death is already written whether you take it or god does so doesnt matter

September 19, 2022 at 12:47 pm

I can’t put my dog to sleep for I am as old as he; and despite our handicaps he also wants to live like me.

Boghos L. Artinian

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Don’t lose out without playing the right game!

Follow the ClearIAS Prelims cum Mains (PCM) Integrated Approach.

Join ClearIAS PCM Course Now

UPSC Online Preparation

• Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)
• Indian Administrative Service (IAS)
• Indian Police Service (IPS)
• IAS Exam Eligibility
• UPSC Free Study Materials
• UPSC Exam Guidance
• UPSC Prelims Test Series
• UPSC Syllabus
• UPSC Online
• UPSC Prelims
• UPSC Interview
• UPSC Toppers
• UPSC Previous Year Qns
• UPSC Age Calculator
• UPSC Calendar 2024
• About ClearIAS
• ClearIAS Programs
• ClearIAS Fee Structure
• IAS Coaching
• UPSC Coaching
• UPSC Online Coaching
• ClearIAS Blog
• Important Updates
• Announcements
• Book Review
• ClearIAS App
• Work with us
• Advertise with us
• Privacy Policy
• Terms and Conditions
• Talk to Your Mentor

Featured on

and many more...

Take ClearIAS Mock Exams: Analyse Your Progress

Analyse Your Performance and Track Your All-India Ranking

Ias/ips/ifs online coaching: target cse 2025.

Are you struggling to finish the UPSC CSE syllabus without proper guidance?

Essay: The Quality of Mercy Killing

I f it were only a matter of law, the public would not feel stranded. He killed her, after all. Roswell Gilbert, a 76-year-old retired electronics engineer living in a seaside condominium in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., considered murdering his wife Emily for at least a month before shooting her through the head with Luger as she sat on their couch. The Gilberts had been husband and wife for 51 years. They were married in 1934, the year after Calvin Coolidge died, the year after Prohibition was lifted, the year that Hank Aaron was born. At 73, Emily had Alzheimer’s disease and osteoporosis; her spinal column was gradually collapsing. Roswell would not allow her to continue life as “a suffering animal,” so he committed what is called a mercy killing The jury saw only the killing; they felt Gilbert had mercy on himself. He was sentenced to 25 years with no chance of parole, which would make him 101 by the time he got out. The Governor has been asked to grant clemency. Most Floridians polled hope that Gilbert will go free.

Not that there ever was much of a legal or practical question involved. Imagine the precedent set by freeing a killer simply because he killed for love. Othello killed for love, though his passion was loaded with a different motive. Does any feeling count, or is kindness alone an excuse for murder? Or age: maybe someone has to be 76 and married 51 years to establish his sincerity. There are an awful lot of old people and long marriages in Florida. A lot of Alzheimer’s disease and osteoporosis as well. Let Gilbert loose, the fear is, and watch the run on Lugers.

Besides, the matter of mercy killing is getting rough and out of hand. Nobody seems to use poison anymore. In Fort Lauderdale two years ago, a 79-year-old man shot his 62-year-old wife in the stairwell of a hospital; like Emily Gilbert, she was suffering from Alzheimer’s disease. In San Antonio four years ago, a 69-year-old man shot his 72-year-old brother to death in a nursing home. Last June a man in Miami put two bullets in the heart of his three-year-old daughter who lay comatose after a freak accident. An organization that studies mercy killings says that nine have occurred this year alone. You cannot have a murder every time someone feels sorry for a loved one in pain. Any fool knows that.

Yet you also feel foolish watching a case like Gilbert’s (if any case can be said to be like another) because, while both feet are planted firmly on the side of law and common sense, both are firmly planted on Gilbert’s side as well. The place the public really stands is nowhere: How can an act be equally destructive of society and wholly human? The reason anyone would consider going easy on Gilbert is that we can put ourselves in his shoes, can sit at his wife’s bedside day after day, watching the Florida sun gild the furniture and listening to the Atlantic lick the beach like a cat. Emily dozes. He looks at her in a rare peaceful pose and is grateful for the quiet.

Or he dreams back to when such a scene would have been unimaginable: she, sharp as a tack, getting the better of him in an argument; he, strong as a bull, showing off by swinging her into the air–on a beach, perhaps, like the one in front of the condominium where old couples like themselves walk in careful slow motion at the water’s edge. Since the case became a cause, photographs of the Gilberts have appeared on television, she in formal gown, he in tails; they, older, in a restaurant posing deadpan for a picture for no reason, the way people do in restaurants. In a way the issue here is age: mind and body falling away like slabs of sand off a beach cliff. If biology declares war, have people no right to a pre-emptive strike? In the apartment he continues to stare at her who, from time to time, still believes they are traveling together in Spain.

Now he wonders about love. He loves his wife; he tells her so; he has told her so for 51 years. And he thinks of what he meant by that: her understanding of him, her understanding of others, her sense of fun. Illness has replaced those qualities in her with screams and a face of panic. Does he love her still? Of course, he says; he hates the disease, but he loves his wife. Or–and this seems hard–does he only love what he remembers of Emily? Is the frail doll in the bed an impostor? But no; this is Emily too, the same old Emily hidden somewhere under the decaying cells and in the folds of the painkillers. It is Emily and she is suffering and he swore he would always look after her.

He considers an irony: you always hurt the one you love. By what act or nonact would he be hurting his wife more? He remembers news stories he has read of distraught people in similar positions, pulling the plugs on sons and husbands or assisting in the suicides of desperate friends. He sympathizes, but with a purpose; he too is interested in precedents. Surely, he concludes, morality swings both ways here. What is moral for the group cannot always be moral for the individual, or there would be no individuality, no exceptions, even if the exceptions only prove the rule. Let the people have their rules. What harm would it do history to relieve Emily’s pain? A little harm, perhaps, no more than that.

This is what we see in the Gilbert case, the fusion of our lives with theirs in one grand and pathetic cliché in which all lives look pretty much alike. We go round and round with Gilbert: Gilbert suddenly wondering if Emily might get better, if one of those white-coated geniuses will come up with a cure. Gilbert realizing that once Emily is gone, he will go too, since her way of life, however wretched, was their way of life. He is afraid for them both. In The Merchant of Venice Portia says that mercy is “twice blessed;/ It blesses him that gives and him that takes.” The murder committed, Gilbert does not feel blessed. At best, he feels he did right, which the outer world agrees with and denies.

Laws are unlikely to be changed by such cases: for every modification one can think of, there are too many loopholes and snares. What Gilbert did in fact erodes the whole basis of law, which is to keep people humane and civilized. Yet Gilbert was humane, civilized and wrong: a riddle. In the end we want the law intact and Gilbert free, so that society wins on both counts. What the case proves, however, is that society is helpless to do anything for Gilbert, for Emily or for itself. All we can do is recognize a real tragedy when we see one, and wonder, perhaps, if one bright morning 1934 Gilbert read of a mercy killing in the papers, leaned earnestly across the breakfast table and told his new bride: “I couldn’t do that. I could never do that.” –By Roger Rosenblatt

More Must-Reads from TIME

• Javier Milei’s Radical Plan to Transform Argentina
• The New Face of Doctor Who
• How Private Donors Shape Birth-Control Choices
• What Happens if Trump Is Convicted ? Your Questions, Answered
• The Deadly Digital Frontiers at the Border
• Scientists Are Finding Out Just How Toxic Your Stuff Is
• The 31 Most Anticipated Movies of Summer 2024
• Want Weekly Recs on What to Watch, Read, and More? Sign Up for Worth Your Time

Contact us at [email protected]

1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology

Philosophy, One Thousand Words at a Time

Euthanasia, or Mercy Killing

Author: Nathan Nobis Category: Ethics Word count: 1000

Listen here

Sadly, there are people in very bad medical conditions who want to die. They are in pain, they are suffering, and they no longer find their quality of life to be at an acceptable level anymore.

When people like this are kept alive by machines or other medical treatments, can it be morally permissible to let them die ?

Advocates of “passive euthanasia” argue that it can be. Their reasons, however, suggest that it can sometimes be not wrong to actively kill some patients, i.e., that “active euthanasia” can be permissible also. [1] This essay reviews these arguments.

1. Passive Euthanasia

Denying that passive euthanasia is ever morally permissible suggests that we must always do everything we can to try to keep someone alive, even if they are miserable, want to die, and say so. To many, that’s just cruel. [2]

Passive euthanasia can be directly supported by both consequentialist (or utilitarian) and Kantian ethics. [3]

For the consequentialist, the patient being out of their misery is a better consequence for them , and overall, than their staying alive: this decreases the total amount of pain and unhappiness in the world, and no other choice would produce more good, for them or overall.

For a Kantian, letting them die respects their autonomy or decisions about matters that profoundly affect their own lives: this respects them as “ends in themselves,” whereas forcing them to live treats them as a “mere means” toward our ends, not their own.

Passive euthanasia can also be supported by stating conditions when it can be OK to let someone die. We begin with an ‘if’ and develop a principle:

(a) someone is dying, and (b) is in horrible pain and suffering, and (c) that pain and suffering cannot be relieved, and (d) that person wants to die and says so, and (e) informed, thoughtful and caring people agree that the person would be better off no longer living . . ,

then it can be permissible to let that person die. [4]

Passive euthanasia, then, can be justified in a variety of ways.

2. Active Euthanasia

To see why active euthanasia might be permissible, we begin by reflecting on why passive euthanasia might be OK: it gets people out of their misery and respects what they want for their own lives.

We then observe that these goals can often be pursued more directly and immediately by, say, giving them an overdose of pain-killing medications. Letting people die can take a long time, and that time might be full of unwanted suffering. Killing people, when they want to be killed, achieves their goals, more quickly.

So, it seems that if passive euthanasia can be permissible, so can active.

3. Objections

There are many objections to this reasoning. Some concern euthanasia in general.

3.1. Some claim that pain can always be controlled and so there is never a need to euthanize anyone. However, this insistence that pain can always be made bearable is, sadly, not true.

3.2. Some argue that “miracles” are possible – there’s always a chance that someone recovers – and so euthanasia is wrong. But making important decisions on very unlikely chances is often unwise. Most interestingly though, euthanasia would never prevent a miracle, especially one of divine origins.

Further objections claim there are important differences between active and passive euthanasia, making passive permissible but active wrong.

3.3. Some argue that it’s always wrong to intentionally kill someone, so active euthanasia is wrong. In reply, while it’s, at least, nearly always wrong to kill people, this is arguably because people usually want to live and do not have lives full of pain. Perhaps killing can be justified when this is not the case. [5]

3.4. Some argue that allowing active euthanasia might put us on a “slippery slope” to murdering people who want to live. But this hasn’t happened where active euthanasia is allowed, since we do and would have safeguards to lessen this possibility, as we do with other things that might lead to bad results if misused.

3.5. Some argue that there are important moral differences between allowing something to happen and doing something or because killing someone and letting them die are profoundly different, and so passive and active euthanasia should be judged differently. But consider this case:

An aunt will inherit lots of money if her five-year-old nephew dies. She plans to drown him in the bathtub and make it look like an accident. He just started his bath; she’s on her way to the bathroom to drown him. She opens the bathroom door and is delighted to see that he has slipped in the bathtub and is drowning. She watches, ready to push him under if he steadies himself and saves his own life. But, as her luck would have it, he drowns; she never touches him throughout the ordeal. She inherits the money. [6]

If she claimed that she didn’t “do anything,” she did : she stood there, and doing nothing is doing something . And letting someone die can be as bad , or nearly as bad , and perhaps sometimes even worse than killing someone [7] : indeed, a way to kill someone is to let them die. So these distinctions are, at least, not clear.

3.6. A final concern is that especially if active euthanasia were allowed, some people could be wrongfully killed. This is possible: some people might wrongfully break (potentially good) rules. But we cannot ignore that if euthanasia is not allowed, it might be that some people could be wrongly kept alive. Which wrong is more likely? Which wrong is worse?

4. Conclusion

While death is, arguably, usually bad for the person who dies, the goal of euthanasia is to make this less bad: the word euthanasia means a “good death.” These issues are important, and not just for people currently facing hard choices about death. None of us knows what will happen to us: at any time, an accident or illness might force these issues upon us, and so we should engage them more deeply, now. [8]

[1] The discussion and arguments here are largely based on James Rachels ’ (1941-2003) famous and widely-reprinted article “ Active and Passive Euthanasia,” New England Journal of Medicine 1975; 292: 78-80 .

[2] The discussion here concerns what’s called voluntary euthanasia, where a person wants to die and says so. There are other types of euthanasia though. Non-voluntary euthanasia involves an individual who neither wants to die nor wants to live, e.g., someone who has been unconscious for a long time, say in a coma, and we have good reason to believe that consciousness will never return: they currently don’t literally want anything and we usually don’t know what they would have wanted , since people usually don’t discuss this. What is sometimes called involuntary “euthanasia” involves someone who wants to live and says so . If such a person is let die or killed, this is not euthanasia: in all or nearly all cases, this is murder or wrongful killing , and so won’t be discussed further here.

These definitions cover most actual cases of euthanasia, but they aren’t perfect. First, it could happen that someone said that, if they were to fall into a permanent coma, they would very much want their body to be kept alive for as long as possible, but nobody knows this is what they wanted: if they are euthanized, is that in voluntary or non -voluntary? It could also happen that someone wants to die, but has no way of communicating that (suppose they have an extreme form of “ locked-in syndrome ,” with eye paralysis too, so they cannot even blink out messages): if they are euthanized, is that voluntary or non-voluntary? These cases are unclear, given the characterizations above, as are further possibilities of someone who wants to die but nobody knows that and someone who wants to live but nobody can tell .

Non-human animals who are judged to have a poor quality of life due to serious health problems are often (actively) euthanized: is this best considered a form of non-voluntary euthanasia, or potentially a different type of voluntary euthanasia? These animals have some current wants or desires, unlike a coma patient, but probably don’t have a specific want or desire to die, unlike in typical voluntary euthanasia cases. 

[3] Consequentialism and Kantianism can be used to support euthanasia (although Kant himself might have opposed it: Kant’s own judgments on many moral issues and the positions on moral issues that his theories arguably support sometimes diverge). But these theories do urge us to be very cautious about bringing about someone’s death, including our own.

Consequentialists would, and should, urge especially anyone who doesn’t have a challenging medical condition but wishes to die to seek counseling and assistance to help find happiness and fulfillment: in most cases, this would be better than death for that person and for promoting overall happiness. “ It gets better ,” the saying goes: it’s possible for someone to be euthanized (passively or actively), or commit suicide (if someone euthanizes themselves, this is a type of suicide; if they need assistance to do this, this is assisted suicide ), whose death is not in their own best interest or contributes to the greatest overall good. Indeed, some people have wished to die, have been prevented from ending their own life, come to appreciate their own life later, and then have been glad that they had not ended their life when they wanted to do so earlier. (However, it’s also sometimes true that people want to die, they live, and are eventually able to live what they report to be fulfilling lives, yet they still they wish they had died: Dax Cowart is a well-known case perhaps like this).

And Kantians don’t think that autonomy is unrestricted or limitless: just because we want something for ourselves doesn’t mean we should get it. Kantians firmly reject an attitude of “It’s your life, so do whatever you want with it,” since we have obligations to respect ourselves (and our future selves), given our value as persons, and this respect for ourselves could rule out some cases of euthanasia and suicide.

[4] The details of a principle like this, however, take us to harder questions about euthanasia, harder than those that arise in most circumstances: for examples, what if someone wants to die now but isn’t currently in horrible pain and suffering, or is expecting to die, but many years later after a very slow decline? Should anyone else have “say” over your own life or judge whether some pain and suffering is “horrible enough” for you to reasonably wish to die? If so, who? What if someone isn’t dying and doesn’t even have a bad medical condition but just finds their life not worth living and so wants to die (and so, say, plans to starve themselves to death or do other things that will result in their death)? These harder questions, and others, would need to be addressed for a complete defense of this or similar principles and any arguments based on them.

[5] Some might claim that their intention in any euthanasia is not to kill anyone: killing is an unintended consequence of their real intention, which might be to make the patient comfortable. If this makes sense, they might claim that they are not engaged in any intentional killing, so they aren’t violating any moral principle against intentional killing. This type of reasoning is related to what’s called the “Doctrine of Double Effect.”

[6] This case is from James Rachels. Here is another example that addresses the distinction between doing something versus allowing something to happen :

In a deep forest, hiking alone, Adam finds someone who has fallen into a deep pit. They ask him to throw them a rope so they can climb out. Adam doesn’t and they eventually starve to death. Adam learns of this on the news but feels fine since, he tells himself, “I didn’t do anything there. I did nothing wrong.”

To most, Adam clearly did something  –  he didn’t just allow something to happen – and he did something wrong: what he did , standing there not throwing the rope, was wrong.

[7] For tragic reflections that letting someone die can be worse than killing them, see Gary Comstock, “You Should Not Have Let Your Baby Die,” The New York Times , July 12, 2017 .

[8] Thanks to Zach Blaesi, Taylor Cyr, Chelsea Haramia, Dan Lowe, Travis Rodgers and Dan Peterson for comments on and discussion of this essay.

Gary Comstock, “You Should Not Have Let Your Baby Die,” The New York Times , July 12, 2017 .

James Rachels, “Active and Passive Euthanasia,” New England Journal of Medicine 1975; 292: 78-80.

For Further Reading

Young, Robert, “Voluntary Euthanasia”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta .

Cholbi, Michael, “Suicide”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.) .

Woollard, Fiona and Howard-Snyder, Frances, “Doing vs. Allowing Harm”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.) .

McIntyre, Alison, “Doctrine of Double Effect”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.) .

Related Essays

Applied Ethics by Chelsea Haramia

The Badness of Death by Duncan Purves

Is Death Bad? Epicurus and Lucretius on the Fear of Death by Frederik Kaufman

The Doctrine of Double Effect: Do Intentions Matter to Ethics? by Gabriel Andrade

Deontology: Kantian Ethics by Andrew Chapman

Consequentialism by Shane Gronholz

Principlism in Biomedical Ethics: Respect for Autonomy, Non-Maleficence, Beneficence, and Justice  by G. M. Trujillo, Jr.

Can We Believe in Miracles? by Tomas Bogardus

Possibility and Necessity: An Introduction to Modality  by Andre Leo Rusavuk

Are We Animals? Animalism and Personal Identity by Kristin Seemuth Whaley

PDF Download

Download this essay in PDF . 

Acknowledgments 

This essay is an abbreviated version of a longer chapter of the same title published in Noah Levin, ed.,  Introduction to Ethics: An Open Educational Resource (NGE Press, 2019) .  Nathan is grateful to Noah Levin for the occasion and inspiration to write these essays. 

About the Author

Nathan Nobis is a Professor of Philosophy at Morehouse College, Atlanta, GA. He is the author of Animals & Ethics 101 , co-author of  Thinking Critically About Abortion , a co-author of  Chimpanzee Rights , and author or co-author of many other articles, chapters, and reviews in philosophy and ethics. www.NathanNobis.com

Follow 1000-Word Philosophy on  Facebook  and  Twitter  and subscribe to receive email notifications of new essays at  1000WordPhilosophy.com .

Share this:, 11 thoughts on “ euthanasia, or mercy killing ”.

• Pingback: The Doctrine of Double Effect: Do Intentions Matter to Ethics? – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Psychological Approaches to Personal Identity: Do Memories and Consciousness Make Us Who We Are? – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Are We Animals? Animalism and Personal Identity – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Principlism in Biomedical Ethics: Respect for Autonomy, Non-Maleficence, Beneficence, and Justice – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Personal Identity – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Is Death Bad? Epicurus and Lucretius on the Fear of Death – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Ethics: A Collection of Online Resources and Key Quotes - The Daily Idea
• Pingback: Ethics: A Collection of Online Resources and Key Quotes – The Daily Idea
• Pingback: Speciesism – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Applied Ethics – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Online Philosophy Resources Weekly Update - Daily Nous

Comments are closed.

Euthanasia (Mercy Killing) Essay

Euthanasia refers to termination of the life of a patient who has no prospect of recovering. The patient might be in great pain and suffering, which calls for termination of his or her life in order to release him or her from pain.

Termination of life qualifies to be euthanasia if a professional or a medical practitioner does it. Moreover, Euthanasia is granted to a patient if he or she does not have a prospect of recovering. In the modern society, Euthanasia is an ethical issue that has raised a controversy between those supporting it and those opposed to it.

Mercy killing takes two major forms, depending on the concept and procedure. Voluntary Euthanasia takes place when the patient requests for the termination of his or her life (Torr 87). Apart from requesting the hospital to terminate his or her life, the patient might as well give consent to the termination of his or her life. In some circumstances, the family and friends of the patient might request the hospital to terminate the life of the patient without necessarily informing the patient. This is termed as involuntary euthanasia.

Involuntary euthanasia takes place when the patient is unable to give consent due to incompetence. Positive euthanasia takes place when the patient is assisted to die through injection of lethal drugs or shooting. Negative or passive euthanasia happens when the patient is left to die without injection of lethal drugs. This takes place when medication is stopped or when the doctor switches off the life-supporting machine.

Euthanasia is highly contested in society since some people claim that God gives life, and only he can take it. Others believe that the sick person should not be left to suffer, but instead relatives and friends must intervene through mercy killing. Proponents suggest that Euthanasia is cost effective implying that the family can save on resources and time by simply helping the patient to die.

Again, Euthanasia is preferred because it saves on the hospital bed and space meaning that curable patients can be admitted (Nitschke 28). Others observe that Euthanasia is the only option if society is to save drugs and fluids, which are usually wasted on patients who will never recover. If Euthanasia is adopted in many countries in the world, doctors will have adequate time to attend to curable diseases and conditions.

Families can as well save on the little resources instead of wasting them on the sick who will never recover. Apart from the issue of cost effectiveness, euthanasia is preferred in the western countries because it is the honorable exit from pain, suffering, and possible humiliation. Euthanasia is considered the only way that one can die with some honor. Based on this argument, we should look at life beyond more existence and consider its quality. When life becomes useless, it should be terminated.

Supporters of euthanasia observe that the principle of individual freedom should be upheld even in matters related to health. An individual should be allowed to choose between life and death. If an individual finds out that his or her life is meaningless, then he or she has the right to terminate it.

Philosophers have also contributed to the topic by noting that the physically fit have a moral obligation of not allowing the sick to suffer if they can help in ending pain. The healthy individuals should use all available means to save those suffering even if this help means employing euthanasia.

Although a number of reasons have been given to justify euthanasia, it should not be legalized because of the sanctity of life. Human life has an intrinsic value and it must be respected at all conditions. Nothing should be done to interfere with human life. If euthanasia is legalized, people will lose respect for human life.

Euthanasia amounts to violation of professional ethics. Medical practitioners are trained in healing and protecting life. In this case, they are not supposed to destroy life. Hippocratic Oath requires that medical doctors must never use their knowledge against human life. They should always support it even if conditions are unbearable. Medicine is not an actual science. In this regard, there could be a possibility of error in medical diagnosis.

A mistake in medical diagnosis causes serious problems because euthanasia does not give the patient a chance to correct the error (Mannes 16). In some parts of the world, such as India and Africa, people believe that miracles might happen, and the patient might be healed. Some individuals argue that sometimes, the condition of the patient might be declared incurable, but after some time the patient is healed miraculously. In other words, we should always hold our patience as we wait for miracles.

Only God gives life and he should be the one taking it. No other person should end it. As human beings, we should always be optimistic for a cure. A cure might be discovered tomorrow because what is incurable today can be cured tomorrow. It will be painful to learn that an individual was assisted to die yet a cure was on the way. Although people have individual freedoms and rights, no person has the right over his or her life.

An individual with friends and family members cannot claim to have the absolute right over his or her life. Our friends and family members are also stakeholders in our lives, and they have a right over our decisions. In some communities, such as African communities, it will be better having a patient in any condition rather than having a dead person. Family members will prefer having a sick person in the house as opposed to having memories of the beloved one (Rachels 56).

The debate on euthanasia is importunate since no group is willing to accept the views of the opposing group. In conclusion, euthanasia is based on two issues, one of them being individual right and the other one is the avoidance of pain and suffering. From a personal standpoint, euthanasia should not be legalized because it is unethical. In most countries of the west, euthanasia is legal implying that it is exercised without restrictions.

Life should always be respected, and any attempt to terminate it should be resisted. As argued by some opponents of euthanasia, a cure might be discovered in the future. Moreover, a miracle might happen along the way since many people have been cured miraculously. For medical practitioners, their role is to protect life but not to terminate it. Therefore, euthanasia should never be allowed in hospitals. Those found discussing it should be prosecuted in the court of law. Allowing euthanasia in society will be disrespecting human life.

Works Cited

Mannes, Marya. “Euthanasia vs. the Right to Life.” Baylor Law Review 27.69 (1975): 14-26. Print.

Nitschke, Philip. The Peaceful Pill Handbook . New York: Exit International Press, 2006. Print.

Rachels, James. The end of life: Euthanasia and Morality . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986.

Torr, James. Euthanasia: opposing viewpoints . San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2000. Print.

• Euthanasia: Right to Live or Right to Die
• Euthanasia: Is It Worth the Fuss?
• The Problem of Euthanasia
• Ethical Problems in Animal Experimentation
• Ethical Dilemma: Heroin Prescription
• Euthanasian Issues in Modern Society
• Ethical Dilemma: the Husband’s Right to Confidential Treatment
• Ethics Issue - Organ Transplants
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, November 20). Euthanasia (Mercy Killing). https://ivypanda.com/essays/euthanasia-mercy-killing/

"Euthanasia (Mercy Killing)." IvyPanda , 20 Nov. 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/euthanasia-mercy-killing/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'Euthanasia (Mercy Killing)'. 20 November.

IvyPanda . 2018. "Euthanasia (Mercy Killing)." November 20, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/euthanasia-mercy-killing/.

1. IvyPanda . "Euthanasia (Mercy Killing)." November 20, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/euthanasia-mercy-killing/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Euthanasia (Mercy Killing)." November 20, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/euthanasia-mercy-killing/.

Sensitive Topics: How to Write a Mercy Killing Essay

Don’t Forget to Study a Sample Argumentative Euthanasia Essay

If you have no idea how to approach the topic, you may try and find some examples on the Internet. Although it will be a really bad decision to copy/paste any of them and try to pass it for your own writing, reading one may provide you with the much necessary insight and help you get to grips with the issue. If you have a strong opinion on the subject, you should probably look for an example of argumentative essay that promotes another point of view – when you see how wrong the author is and in what respects, it will be easier for you to build up your own argumentation.

Your Own Take on Mercy Killing Essay

There are a lot of possible approaches you may use when dealing with the topic of euthanasia. But whatever opinion you share, don’t forget that you shouldn’t found your essay on emotions, no matter how much this particular topic asks for it. What you need is real argumentation, supported with facts, statistics, examples from real life and so on. For example, if you support euthanasia, you may mention the number of patients slowly dying of incurable diseases with no hope for recovery who could be otherwise spared the pain and indignity of their position if they were allowed to die. If you are against it, you may mention the examples of people waking up from coma long after the doctors had given up on them and told their loved ones that they may just as well pull the plug on them. Study a sample argumentative essay on the topic and think about the arguments presented by another person – maybe you can disprove them? As you may see, the possibilities are boundless, especially if you have a strong opinion on the subject in question.

Our statistics

Home / Essay Samples / Health / Euthanasia / The Ethics of Mercy Killing: A Complex Dilemma

The Ethics of Mercy Killing: A Complex Dilemma

• Category: Health , Life
• Topic: Death , Ethical Dilemma , Euthanasia

Pages: 3 (1495 words)

• Downloads: -->

--> ⚠️ Remember: This essay was written and uploaded by an--> click here.

Found a great essay sample but want a unique one?

are ready to help you with your essay

You won’t be charged yet!

Universal Health Care Essays

Substance Abuse Essays

Underage Drinking Essays

Assisted Suicide Essays

Gambling Addiction Essays

Related Essays

We are glad that you like it, but you cannot copy from our website. Just insert your email and this sample will be sent to you.

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service  and  Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Your essay sample has been sent.

In fact, there is a way to get an original essay! Turn to our writers and order a plagiarism-free paper.

samplius.com uses cookies to offer you the best service possible.By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .--> -->