her fate. She felt certain the Paula's life would be filled with anguish.

So one night she put Paula to bed and gave her a bottle containing a strong sedative. The baby died painlessly during the night.

Anna Ross readily admitted to the killing. She said. "I killed little Paula because I loved her. I brought her into the world, and she was unable to end her constant pain and misery. I felt I had to send her to God. "

A survey of more than 10,000 people taken by a local newspaper indicated that over 98 percent agreed with Anna Ross's action. Whcn she stood trial, a jury found Mrs. Ross not guilty in under three hours.

4. Innocent or Guilty?

The fact that the majority of persons brought to trial for mercy killing are usually found innocent suggests that the law against it exists only on the books or in theory. But this isn't quite true. Case records indicate that the wheels of justice do not always grind evenly.

While Lester M. Zygnamiak was acquitted, Harold Mohar oi Pennsylvania, involved in a similar case, was not. Mohar was convicted of voluntary manslaughter for killing his blind,cancer-stricken brother who had pleaded with him to do so. He was sentenced to from three to six years in prison and fined $ 500.

As a result of such uncertain consequences, many healthy people have become concerned over their right to die. If stricken with a severe mental or physical disability , they want to be assured that their lives will not be prolonged artificially by medical technology.

5. Legal System Should Be Established

to Deal with Euthanasia

Many countries have legalized mercy killing. In Uruguay the law states that, "The judges are authorized to forgo punishmen,t of a person whose life has been honorable where he commits a homicide motivated by compassion induced by repeated requests by the victim." Switzerland, Norway, and Germany have adopted similar approaches.

American law appears in need of revision. However, some feel that legalized euthanasia would invite abuse. Any form of murder might be conveniently dubbed" mercy killing " by unscrupulous persons. In response, some euthanasia proponents have suggested that our legal system establish an evaluation body to judge which requests for a mercy killing are valid before the act is committed.

6.Is There a Way to Compromise?

Medical science is doing all it can to extend human life and is succeeding brilliantly. Living conditions are so much better, so many diseases can either be prevented or cured that life expectation has increased enormously. No one would deny that this is a good thing-provided one enjoys perfect health. But is it a good thing to extend human suffering, to prolong life, not in order to give joy and happiness, but to give pain and sorrow?

Take an extreme example. Take the case of a man who is so senile he has lost all his faculties. He is in hospital in an unconscious state with little chance of coming round, but he is kept alive by artificial means for an indefinite period. Everyone, his friends, relatives and even the doctors agree that death will bring release. Indeed, the patient himself would agree-if he were in a position to give choice to his feelings. Yet everything is done to perpetuate what has become a meaningless existence.

The question of euthanasia raises serious moral issues, since it implies that active measures will be taken to terminate human life. And t

上一页  [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] 下一页