Table of ContentsArguments for Mercy KillingArguments Against Mercy KillingLegal and Societal ImplicationsConclusionThe concept of mercy killing, often called euthanasia, has long been a subject of debate emotional and ethical. Mercy killing involves the act of intentionally ending a person's life to relieve them of suffering, usually in cases of terminal illness or severe pain. This essay aims to critically evaluate the arguments for and against mercy killing, using well-researched evidence, statistics, and reputable sources to provide a comprehensive analysis of this controversial issue. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay The Case for Mercy Killing Proponents of mercy killing argue that it is a compassionate response to unbearable suffering. According to a study published in the Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, a significant number of terminally ill patients experience severe pain that cannot be adequately controlled by modern medicine (Smith et al., 2018). For these people, euthanasia offers a way to end their suffering with dignity. Proponents also argue that individuals have a right to autonomy and should be able to make decisions about their own bodies, including the choice to end their lives in the face of a terminal illness. Jack Kevorkian, a prominent advocate of physician-assisted suicide, argued that “dying is not a crime” (Kevorkian, 1991). His position underscores the belief that mercy killing should be viewed as a personal choice rather than a criminal act. Additionally, data from countries where euthanasia is legal, such as the Netherlands and Belgium, reveals that strict regulatory frameworks ensure that the practice is carried out ethically and responsibly. A report from the Netherlands Regional Euthanasia Review Committees showed that in 2019, 91% of euthanasia cases were found to meet legal criteria (Regional Euthanasia Review Committees, 2019) . and moral objections. Critics argue that euthanasia violates the sanctity of life, a principle upheld by many religious and cultural traditions. The American Medical Association (AMA) maintains that “physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the healing role of the physician” (AMA, 2016). According to this perspective, healthcare professionals should focus on providing palliative care and relieving symptoms, rather than on the end of life. Additionally, opponents of mercy killing worry about the risk of abuse and slippery slope scenarios. In a study conducted by Emanuel et al. (2016), evidence suggests that vulnerable populations, such as older adults and people with disabilities, may be at greater risk of coercion or pressure to choose euthanasia. The fear is that the legalization of mercy killing could lead to a devaluation of human life and a move towards euthanasia as a cost-saving measure in health systems. Legal and Societal Implications The legal status of mercy killing varies widely across the world. In the United States, for example, only a handful of states have passed laws allowing physician-assisted suicide under strict guidelines. Oregon's Death with Dignity Act, implemented in 1997, allows terminally ill patients to request lethal medications from their doctors. According to the Oregon Health Authority, since, 55(5), 1080-1088.