Topic: In Of Mice & Men, George shoots Lennie to save him from a worse fate and in "David," Bob pushes David off the mountain to save him from further suffering. In a well-written multi-paragraph expository essay (minimum 1,000 words), discuss the justification for mercy killing in the novel, the poem, and in society today.
......................................................................................................................
"Death is the one great certainty. The subject of powerful social and religious
rituals and moving literature, it is contemplated by philosophers, probed by
biologists, and combated by physicians. Death, taboo in some cultures, preoccupies others"(President
3). Society's preoccupation with the
right to die presents the problem of the right to kill. Legally and ethically,
how does today's society comprehend murder committed out of mercy and
compassion? How much compassion does
society have for individuals who choose to end their life with the aid of
someone else? Voluntary or involuntary,
mercy killing can be justified in particular circumstances, such as those in,
"David," in Of Mice and Men, and in society today.
In
the poem "David" by Earl Birney, the subject of voluntary euthanasia
is raised when David asks to be killed once he has become paralyzed. Considering the variables set in the poem,
Bob was entirely justified in fulfilling David's final wishes. For Bob, by himself, would have had no way
to move David off the mountain they had been climbing without harming David
even more. By the time Bob descended
the mountain to get help, the temperature would have dropped to levels where
the helpless David potentially would have become hypothermic. And even if hypothermia did not overcome
David, he likely would have bled to death.
Earlier
in the poem, when Bob goes to save a bird with a broken wing, David makes his
views on life and death quite clear: "I caught it to tame but David/Took
and killed it, and said, 'Could you teach it to fly?'"(Birney). Even if he could be saved from the mountain,
David would not have wanted to live as a quadriplegic for the rest of his life:
"[David] said
only. 'Perhaps…For/what? A wheelchair, / Bob?'"(Birney). Bob did the right thing by disregarding his
own personal values in the end. Instead, he was compassionate to assist David to die.
While
David's death was voluntary, more controversy occurs when mercy killing happens
involuntarily, such as the case of Lennie's death in Of Mice and Men. Because so many questions are left
unanswered in the novel, such as what could have happened to Lennie once Curley
caught him, the mercy killing of Lennie is probably justified. Lennie died with the pleasant thought of
"tending the rabbits" in his head, instead of being lynched by
Curley, being put into jail, or being confined in a mental institution. Like the foreshadowing of the bird with the
broken wing in "David," the killing of Candy's dog hints at the
eventual killing of Lennie. The way
Carlson explains the situation to Candy as, "You ain't bein' kind to him
keepin' him alive," can also be applied to George and Lennie (Steinbeck 45). How kind would George have been if he did
not save Lennie from being tortured and killed by Curley? George did not act selfishly in killing
Lennie because if George had been selfish and immoral, he would not have cared
for Lennie in the first place. They had
been best friends since childhood, and by no means did George have to continue
going from job to job with Lennie, as they grew older. Had George wanted to rid himself of the
burden Lennie, he would have shot Lennie after the accusation of rape in
Weed. Instead he and Lennie ran and
were able to get a job at a different ranch, furthering their dream of owning a
farm. In the end, George only sought to
spare Lennie from a much worse fate at the hands of Curley, who would have made
every effort to be as merciless as possible.
In
today's times, many people are faced similar dilemmas to George and Bob, where
they must prevent loved ones from suffering. The most pressing issue is defining who, if anyone, should decide
another person's fate. However, today
individuals can make decisions on how they would like to end their lives,
"especially when [they] can no longer speak for [themselves]"
(Fletch 64). The recent development of
living wills or advance directives allows people to refuse treatment.
Because modern technology can keep people alive but completely
dependent on a series of machines, many unprepared people lose their
right to
die peacefully and with dignity. The
President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine
made the
very important point that "persons with severe brain damage or certain
other serious incapacities could not survive very long until methods
such as
cardiopulmonary resuscitation, artificial ventilation, and artificial
nutrition
and hydration made it possible to sustain life nearly indefinitely,
even when
the person was totally unaware of life or of his or her surroundings"
(3). Without the help of living wills,
many of the controversial cases of people being removed from
respirators or
feeding tubes would have never occurred.
An infallible loophole presents itself in the Hippocratic
Oath, where it states that as a doctor, "I will give no deadly medicine to
any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel" (Zucker 38). A medical professional's duty is to preserve
life, but how far should this be taken? When the doctors are no longer physically aiding patients in living, but
relying on extraordinary measures to keep them alive against their wishes, a
decision must be made. A statement made
by the American Medical Association House of Delegates explains their
professional opinion of what that decision should be: "The cessation of
the employment of extraordinary means to prolong the life of the body when
there is irrefutable evidence that biological death is imminent is the decision
of the patient and/or his immediate family" (75). In instances such as the Quinlan case, where
patients are not able to speak for themselves due to comatose states and severe
brain damage, the patient's closest family members, with the advice from
medical professionals, should make the decision of how the patient in question
should continue to live, if at all. Considering the patient meets all of the requirements of the definition
of an irreversible coma, in accordance to the Ad Hoc committee of the Harvard
Medical School to Examine the Definition of Brain Death, then the patient
should not be kept alive by artificial means (6).
Individuals
not in a comatose states or 'brain dead,' but instead suffering from a
diagnosed terminal illness, thus capable, to a certain extent, of enjoying
their remaining time, should enter palliative care. Otherwise known as hospice, palliative care provides the
terminally ill as well as their families with relief and sanctuary,
"whereas standard medical treatment for cancer and AIDS' patients strives
to prolong life at virtually any cost" (Cundiff 6). In hospice, pain relief is given to patients
so that they can spend their last days comfortably with their loved ones;
however, the extreme measures taken in some hospital scenarios are not used in
palliative care. Patients who do not wish
to go through the extreme and extensive treatments in a hospital, might receive
no treatment to keep them alive against their wishes. In hospice, they would be able to die naturally and with dignity
in peaceful surroundings.
Relieving
personal suffering, with assistance of someone else, can be justified
when the
circumstances are right and all the variables considered. Comatose or
'brain dead' patients should
have the right to die peacefully. Because of the patient's state, their
families should be able to choose
how they live. Along with medical
guidance, the family's decision to remove their loved ones from the
extraordinary measures keeping them alive should be respected.
Involuntary euthanasia is not murder because
euthanasia is not committed out of hate and malice but rather out of
compassion. Indeed, in some instances,
murder is claimed in the name of mercy, but with consent from the
family and
doctors is executed through a living will, so that murder is not the
case. For those patients who are terminally ill,
instead of assisted suicide, there is the much better option of
palliative
care, where the sanctity of life is valued equally with death. But
palliative care can still be torture for those in pain. Individuals who
are not comatose are able to
express their wishes, and by no means should the option of treatment be
withheld from a terminally ill patient. Should they make the decision
to refuse the offered treatment, then
compromising their decision is unjust. Instead of purposefully taking
their own life, they can let nature take
its course in a hospice setting.
Another instance where mercy killing can be justified is in Of Mice and Men. By taking Lennie's life, George did not benefit himself in anyway. Considering the time, as well as the situation, the best decision George could have made was to relieve Lennie from any suffering he would have met in the very near future. Time and place also play crucial roles in the poem "David." Bob's actions can be justified because of the dilemma he was facing. David, realizing what his future would be like in a wheelchair, voluntarily wanted to be killed. Would both of these situations be accepted in society today? Probably not, as there are much better solutions. Mentally disabled people, such as Lennie are treated very differently now compared to the Depression era when Of Mice and Men is set. The superiority of modern climbing equipment could have prevented David's fall. Unfortunately, neither situation happened in today's times. Ultimately, any situation involving mercy killing must be considered individually, remembering not to confuse personal morals and ideals with those of the individual in question. How is it fair to refuse and individual comfort and peace, when really we are keeping them alive for ourselves?