Mercy Killing - Is there any way to justify it?

[Guardian]

The other day I was watching the movie, “Last of the Mohicans.” In one scene, the Huron Indians grabbed Maj. Duncan Heyward and started to burn him at the stake. Obviously, this is an extremely slow and painful death.

Anyway, the “good guy” lead character, Nathaniel Poe, ran off while this was happening, and from a distance, pulled out his long rifle and shot Maj. Duncan Heyward in the forehead, killing him instantly. He did it to stop his intense suffering.

I know that “mercy killing” is wrong, but dag gone, I watch that scene and if I was Duncan, I would be real HAPPY that someone put me out of my misery.

Are there ANY circumstances which could justify this type of killing?

 

[thistle]

The other day I was watching the movie, “Last of the Mohicans.” In one scene, the Huron Indians grabbed Maj. Duncan Heyward and started to burn him at the stake. Obviously, this is an extremely slow and painful death.

Anyway, the “good guy” lead character, Nathaniel Poe, ran off while this was happening, and from a distance, pulled out his long rifle and shot Maj. Duncan Heyward in the forehead, killing him instantly. He did it to stop his intense suffering.

I know that “mercy killing” is wrong, but dag gone, I watch that scene and if I was Duncan, I would be real HAPPY that someone put me out of my misery.

Are there ANY circumstances which could justify this type of killing?

There is no such thing as mercy killing. Its called murder.

 

[Guardian]

There is no such thing as mercy killing. Its called murder.

Fine, I’d be real happy if someone murdered me if I was in that situation.

 

[LilyM]

Yes, and if you’re married and attracted to someone other than your spouse you’d probably be very happy to sleep with that other man or woman, that wouldn’t make it any less adultery if you did.

Right and wrong aren’t a mere question of emotion.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

The other day I was watching the movie, “Last of the Mohicans.” In one scene, the Huron Indians grabbed Maj. Duncan Heyward and started to burn him at the stake. Obviously, this is an extremely slow and painful death.

Anyway, the “good guy” lead character, Nathaniel Poe, ran off while this was happening, and from a distance, pulled out his long rifle and shot Maj. Duncan Heyward in the forehead, killing him instantly. He did it to stop his intense suffering.

I know that “mercy killing” is wrong, but dag gone, I watch that scene and if I was Duncan, I would be real HAPPY that someone put me out of my misery.

Are there ANY circumstances which could justify this type of killing?

:tsktsk: This stems from the error that our lives are our own when in fact they belong to god who purchased them at a great price!
this is also the reason why suicide is a mortal sin.if you find yourself being burnt at the stake (or in any other pain great or small) offer it up to god, unite it to the perfect sacrifice of our lord, and pray for his grace!:getholy:

 

[blessedtoo]

The other day I was watching the movie, “Last of the Mohicans.” In one scene, the Huron Indians grabbed Maj. Duncan Heyward and started to burn him at the stake. Obviously, this is an extremely slow and painful death.

Anyway, the “good guy” lead character, Nathaniel Poe, ran off while this was happening, and from a distance, pulled out his long rifle and shot Maj. Duncan Heyward in the forehead, killing him instantly. He did it to stop his intense suffering.

I know that “mercy killing” is wrong, but dag gone, I watch that scene and if I was Duncan, I would be real HAPPY that someone put me out of my misery.

Are there ANY circumstances which could justify this type of killing?

I like this question because it’s one I have as well. I had these concerns when watching the movie Apocalypto. I think it would be worth further study because I can’t imagine it’s as cut and dried as the posters are presenting it.

If it is acceptable to administer morphine to prevent pain, even if the unintended side effect is death, why can’t it be acceptable to administer a bullet (as the pain killer, not as the agent of death) with the possibility of expediting death?

 

[LilyM]

I like this question because it’s one I have as well. I had these concerns when watching the movie Apocalypto. I think it would be worth further study because I can’t imagine it’s as cut and dried as the posters are presenting it.

If it is acceptable to administer morphine to prevent pain, even if the unintended side effect is death, why can’t it be acceptable to administer a bullet (as the pain killer, not as the agent of death) with the possibility of expediting death?

*Unintended *side effect. With a bullet it’d be an intentional side effect. The ONLY way to put someone out of pain with a bullet is to kill them with it. The death is an inseparable part of the pain relief.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

I like this question because it’s one I have as well. I had these concerns when watching the movie Apocalypto. I think it would be worth further study because I can’t imagine it’s as cut and dried as the posters are presenting it.

If it is acceptable to administer morphine to prevent pain, even if the unintended side effect is death, why can’t it be acceptable to administer a bullet (as the pain killer, not as the agent of death) with the possibility of expediting death?

:bigyikes: :bigyikes: :bigyikes: :bigyikes: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: Would you believe it from the catechism of the catholic church?
Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2277 Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons.
It is morally unacceptable.
Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator.
The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.

Sorry to disappoint you but it is VERY cut and dried.
Case closed Rome has spoken this is the answer even if its not the answer you wanted to see!

 

[blessedtoo]

*Unintended *side effect. With a bullet it’d be an intentional side effect. The ONLY way to put someone out of pain with a bullet is to kill them with it. The death is an inseparable part of the pain relief.

That’s where my question lies. While the person shooting the gun understands that death will probably be the result, his intention is to relieve the suffering in the only way possible. If, for example, it were possible to help the person escape, or kill those who are causing the suffering and eventual death, then one would certainly choose that option. But if the death is inevitable and the suffering inhuman could such an act be considered palliative?

Understand that I am not equating the OP’s scenario with our modern day euthanasia debate. In the case of a person who is suffering today, there are countless ways to alleviate the pain. I am speaking specifically about the situation presented here.

 

[LilyM]

That’s where my question lies. While the person shooting the gun understands that death will probably be the result, his intention is to relieve the suffering in the only way possible. If, for example, it were possible to help the person escape, or kill those who are causing the suffering and eventual death, then one would certainly choose that option. But if the death is inevitable and the suffering inhuman could such an act be considered palliative?

Understand that I am not equating the OP’s scenario with our modern day euthanasia debate. In the case of a person who is suffering today, there are countless ways to alleviate the pain. I am speaking specifically about the situation presented here.

Killing for palliative reasons is the very definition of euthanasia. In all its forms it is sinful, as the quote from the Catechism makes clear. And for good reason. Suffering is NOT evil - certainly not in and of itself - whereas appropriating for yourself God’s own prerogative over life and death IS evil.

Suffering can and should be a great source of sanctification for us. Provided it is borne patiently and united with the sufferings of Christ. For more on the Catholic attitude to suffering read Salvifici Doloris by John Paul II - a man who knew about suffering if anyone does! Point being, by killing people due to a mistaken notion of its being ‘merciful’ we’re sending the wrong message - that suffering is to be avoided at all costs, even the cost of murder.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

That’s where my question lies. While the person shooting the gun understands that death will probably be the result, his intention is to relieve the suffering in the only way possible. If, for example, it were possible to help the person escape, or kill those who are causing the suffering and eventual death, then one would certainly choose that option. But if the death is inevitable and the suffering inhuman could such an act be considered palliative?

Understand that I am not equating the OP’s scenario with our modern day euthanasia debate. In the case of a person who is suffering today, there are countless ways to alleviate the pain. I am speaking specifically about the situation presented here.

What you and the OP are describing Is euthanasia.:tsktsk:
Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of …dying persons.
It is morally unacceptable.
Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator.
The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.

Euthanasia even means mercy killing which the church prohibits in all forms!

 

[Zooey]

Maybe we’re talking in circles here…I think that we have to distinguish between:

1. 
   *]What we wish someone would do, if we were in a horrible situation,
   *]What we believe that we would do, if we saw someone in that same horrible situation, and
   *]What is actually morally correct; what is in accordance with the laws of God.
   If I were Duncan Heyward, & being burned at the stake, I would no doubt wish that someone would just shoot me. If I saw Duncan Heyward being burned, and I had a gun, I might, to be completely honest, just shoot him to end his suffering.
   The difference between what one might do, in a hypothetical case, however, has nothing to do with what is right & what is wrong. One key difference between a person with firm moral standards, & another person without them, is that the moral person does not make the mistake of assuming that because s/he might do it (or wish it done ), that this has any effect whatsoever on the morality of the action. It doesn’t.
   
   The danger is in thinking that, because I do something, that means that it’s all right. (This is the problem with the thinking of many criminals: They know what the law is, they know the penalty; they just don’t care).
   Part of living in a world that has been so horribly marred by sin, is that we can find ourselves in positions where what is wrong, seems to be all right. Here begins relativism, and the fall into that abyss ends us where we are today.
   Would I ask someone to “just shoot me” if I were in Heyward’s position? I might; any of us might.
   Would I shoot, if I were in Poe’s position? I might–and again, any of us might.
   The critical difference comes with the knowledge that, murder is always wrong…and the understanding that my emotions have nothing to do with the ethics of the situation. My** actions** have nothing to do with the ethics of the situation. Killing Heyward is still an act of murder. No matter what the motivations for the act might be.
   HTH

 

[Dorothy]

Any suffering we have on this earth is nothing compared to being with the Lord for all eternity.

Many forget that we can shorten or eliminate Purgatory by the surrendering of ourselves to the sufferings we cannot escape.

 

[blessedtoo]

Maybe we’re talking in circles here…I think that we have to distinguish between:

1. 
   *]What we wish someone would do, if we were in a horrible situation,
   *]What we believe that we would do, if we saw someone in that same horrible situation, and
   *]What is actually morally correct; what is in accordance with the laws of God.
   If I were Duncan Heyward, & being burned at the stake, I would no doubt wish that someone would just shoot me. If I saw Duncan Heyward being burned, and I had a gun, I might, to be completely honest, just shoot him to end his suffering.
   The difference between what one might do, in a hypothetical case, however, has nothing to do with what is right & what is wrong. One key difference between a person with firm moral standards, & another person without them, is that the moral person does not make the mistake of assuming that because s/he might do it (or wish it done ), that this has any effect whatsoever on the morality of the action. It doesn’t.
   
   The danger is in thinking that, because I do something, that means that it’s all right. (This is the problem with the thinking of many criminals: They know what the law is, they know the penalty; they just don’t care).
   Part of living in a world that has been so horribly marred by sin, is that we can find ourselves in positions where what is wrong, seems to be all right. Here begins relativism, and the fall into that abyss ends us where we are today.
   Would I ask someone to “just shoot me” if I were in Heyward’s position? I might; any of us might.
   Would I shoot, if I were in Poe’s position? I might–and again, any of us might.
   The critical difference comes with the knowledge that, murder is always wrong…and the understanding that my emotions have nothing to do with the ethics of the situation. My** actions** have nothing to do with the ethics of the situation. Killing Heyward is still an act of murder. No matter what the motivations for the act might be.
   HTH

1. 
   That is very, very helpful. But I still have this question.
   Murder, as defined in the dictionary, is:
   

   Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).

   So how could what Poe did be considered murder? Shooting Heyward was not malicious, premeditated or deliberate. The question as posed by the OP is could there be a way to justify killing in this extreme situation?

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

That is very, very helpful. But I still have this question.
… The question as posed by the OP is could there be a way to justify killing in this extreme situation?

Look at the catechism entry the answer is no!
:nope: :tsktsk: :bigyikes: :dts: :bigyikes: :tsktsk: :nope:

 

[LilyM]

Any suffering we have on this earth is nothing compared to being with the Lord for all eternity.

Many forget that we can shorten or eliminate Purgatory by the surrendering of ourselves to the sufferings we cannot escape.

More than that - we are called upon, by the example of the Saints and of Our Lord and the exhortations of Our Lady, to VOLUNTARILY take on some sufferings (it’s called penance, people!) for the same purpose.

 

[Guardian]

This is an interesting debate here.

A couple thoughts:

1. Heyward is being murdered regardless, so what’s the difference? Just who is accountable for the act?
2. If you’re being attacked and your life is in danger, the Church says you can defend yourself, even if killing the attacker is necessary. Thus, would it be okay for Poe to shoot the people burning Heyward at the stake, but simply not shoot Heyward?

“Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow.” - CCC 2264

 

[blessedtoo]

This is an interesting debate here.

A couple thoughts:

1. Heyward is being murdered regardless, so what’s the difference? Just who is accountable for the act?
2. If you’re being attacked and your life is in danger, the Church says you can defend yourself, even if killing the attacker is necessary. Thus, would it be okay for Poe to shoot the people burning Heyward at the stake, but simply not shoot Heyward?

Also, I am simply not able (at this point) to draw a parallel between this scenario and the one presented in the movie “Million Dollar Baby”. In the case of Heyward, his suffering can’t be alleviated and his death is absolutely inevitable. Such a situation can in no way be compared to our current cultural debate on euthanasia, whereby most, if not all human suffering, can be alleviated with care and drugs that will allow the person to die with as little agony as possible.

Of course, one could perhaps argue that Poe could have thrown himself onto the fire, in an attempt to extinguish the flames and save Heyward in that manner.

 

[Guardian]

Of course, one could perhaps argue that Poe could have thrown himself onto the fire, in an attempt to extinguish the flames and save Heyward in that manner.

Except for the fact that there were a couple hundred Huron Indians with tomahawks surrounding Heyward and watching him burn.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

A couple thoughts:

1. Heyward is being murdered regardless, so what’s the difference? Just who is accountable for the act?
2. If you’re being attacked and your life is in danger, the Church says you can defend yourself, even if killing the attacker is necessary. Thus, would it be okay for Poe to shoot the people burning Heyward at the stake, but simply not shoot Heyward?

An attempt to rescue heyward would be admirable,:yup: but we aren’t discussing that we are discussing murdering him to spare him a little pain! :nope: