Summary

Basically, Savage establishes an argument against mercy killing as a solution on the issues of emotional burden and chronic sorrow. Her argument is established as a different solution as opposed to the killer solution presented by Dr. Catlin. As opposed to the concerns of Dr. Catlin for the difficult lives faced by children with disabilities, Savage refuses to accept the solution of killing as a way to end suffering of patients. In her discussion, she presents a question on what basis do humans have to on another person’s life. However, even in presenting her discussion in opposition to the points developed by Catlin, Savage confirms an agreement that the society has not played its role in caring for individuals with disabilities and those with chronic illness. She maintains this argument by discussing the societal stigma that is associated with people with disabilities and those with chronic illness.

Dr. Catlin suggests that children people with disabilities are not worth living and it is for this reason that Savage takes the same issue as a center of her argument. However much Dr. Catlin discusses how parents should opt for killing of children with disabilities, Savage comes to an understanding of why some parents would opt for killing disabled children. In her view, Savage believes that it is the society’s responsibility to relieve patient’s pain. According to her, the society should not resort to killing as a way to relieve pain; therefore the society is called upon to understand the difference between removing impediments of pain and causing actual death. Ultimately¸ Savage’s response to Dr. Catlin’s supporting argument on mercy killing maintains a stand that mercy killing is demoralizing and much more demoralizing to be reminded how people with disabilities are mistreated and unwelcomed in our society.

Critical Reflection

A number of themes have emerged from history. Mercy killing and the issues behind it have turned the society into a troubled environment. With many people suggesting that mercy killing should be legalized to relieve patients from pain and suffering, a different group which beliefs in morality opposes the fact that mercy killing should be legalized. The response presented by Savage against the discussion that mercy killing should be legalized is a perfect explanation of how immoral the society has become. Her discussion shows the forms of violence faced by people living with disabilities and the absence of morals in the present society. Furthermore, her discussion provides an exceptional interface between ethics and the issues of morality in the nursing practice. She does not only focus on disabled patients and how they are repeatedly mishandled, she also dwells on the issue of morality that should be upheld in the nursing practice.

Her argument plays a role of a constant reminder of how the society has taken a different direction away from morality. However much she discusses the demoralizing aspect of mercy killing, she also agrees mercy killing could be necessary in situations that are less helpful. It is evident that she revisits the past while clearly providing ideas and directions for a balanced society in the future. She manages to bring out the issue of physician assisted suicide to be the most publicized and controversial topic that has evidently led to a broader visibility and discussion of ethics and morality. She refuses to offer a plea bargaining discussion, instead she critically points out mercy killing as a crime with reference to involvement of people with disabilities.