Something happened in today's communication class... I did something, got a feedback totally unexpected, and I dont know if I was wrong or just didn't put my point properly...
Its was oral communication's class. Prof had given us a topic for group discussion:
"Mercy killing: Should it be legalised?"
Now my general knowledge is very poor, pathetic shall be a better word... I know what mercy killing means, but that's all... No knowledge of any cases, any news on that... Nothing...
So I thought better to keep quiet initially, listen to what others are saying and give opinion accordingly. As the discussion progressed, I found that most were against mercy killing. They were putting some points in favour, but still opposing it... Either they genuinely believed it to be a bad thing or were hesitating to favour it for fear of getting stares from rest...
But from the points put forward ny others, I realised that atleast in some cases mercy killing did make sense... The case here is of the patients in vegetative state...
Sure such a person has life remaining in him, there are chances that he may awake one day... But what are the chances?
See I am not saying here that such a person has no right to live...
But we all know the resources we have are scarce. Especially in India, where a lot of people die for lack of basic medical necessities, what sense does it make to take the resources from ten people, who have a lot more chance of survival, and use those resources to save one person who has hardly any chance to live???
Now one of my fellow group mate argued that what about the value of life? What about the people who care for that one person?
Agreed that there are people for whom that one person is family and they have hopes he will live. But don't the people who are denied the resources have families?
Also, as far as I know, mercy killing is asked by the person or his family itself. The person must be going through a lot of pain to ask for death. In case of family asking for mercy killing, they must be asking for it only after realising that even if the patient lives, it would be a life full of pain and agony.
Now talking about the value of life? I just pointed out that most of the people present in the class eat non-vegetarian food, even the one who put that point... Did they ever thought of the value of life when an animal was killed just because these people "who value life so much" wanted to satisfy their taste buds? How do they react when they read the news of some people being killed in a bomb blast? Most of the time the reaction is:
"Oh God, what has happened to mankind?" and turn the page to read other news. Not one more thought...
Is this caring for the value of life?
Now please understand that I am not saying that there's no value to the life of the person who is in vegetative state...
But I am saying that it makes much more sense to sacrifice the life of a person who is having much less chances to survive to save a few people who have much more chances of survival...
Now this might not be the way I talked in the discussion, courtesy to a lot of counter arguements and angry stares. And hence, there is a probability that whatever I said may have made a very different sense. So my batch-mates might be right in criticising my stance.
But now that I have written everything the way I wanted and you have read it... I ask you, am I wrong?
Its was oral communication's class. Prof had given us a topic for group discussion:
"Mercy killing: Should it be legalised?"
Now my general knowledge is very poor, pathetic shall be a better word... I know what mercy killing means, but that's all... No knowledge of any cases, any news on that... Nothing...
So I thought better to keep quiet initially, listen to what others are saying and give opinion accordingly. As the discussion progressed, I found that most were against mercy killing. They were putting some points in favour, but still opposing it... Either they genuinely believed it to be a bad thing or were hesitating to favour it for fear of getting stares from rest...
But from the points put forward ny others, I realised that atleast in some cases mercy killing did make sense... The case here is of the patients in vegetative state...
Sure such a person has life remaining in him, there are chances that he may awake one day... But what are the chances?
See I am not saying here that such a person has no right to live...
But we all know the resources we have are scarce. Especially in India, where a lot of people die for lack of basic medical necessities, what sense does it make to take the resources from ten people, who have a lot more chance of survival, and use those resources to save one person who has hardly any chance to live???
Now one of my fellow group mate argued that what about the value of life? What about the people who care for that one person?
Agreed that there are people for whom that one person is family and they have hopes he will live. But don't the people who are denied the resources have families?
Also, as far as I know, mercy killing is asked by the person or his family itself. The person must be going through a lot of pain to ask for death. In case of family asking for mercy killing, they must be asking for it only after realising that even if the patient lives, it would be a life full of pain and agony.
Now talking about the value of life? I just pointed out that most of the people present in the class eat non-vegetarian food, even the one who put that point... Did they ever thought of the value of life when an animal was killed just because these people "who value life so much" wanted to satisfy their taste buds? How do they react when they read the news of some people being killed in a bomb blast? Most of the time the reaction is:
"Oh God, what has happened to mankind?" and turn the page to read other news. Not one more thought...
Is this caring for the value of life?
Now please understand that I am not saying that there's no value to the life of the person who is in vegetative state...
But I am saying that it makes much more sense to sacrifice the life of a person who is having much less chances to survive to save a few people who have much more chances of survival...
Now this might not be the way I talked in the discussion, courtesy to a lot of counter arguements and angry stares. And hence, there is a probability that whatever I said may have made a very different sense. So my batch-mates might be right in criticising my stance.
But now that I have written everything the way I wanted and you have read it... I ask you, am I wrong?
