Q.A patient is critically ill, hospitalised for many years, and shows no improvement. Should the life support system of the patient be withdrawn? What is your view on euthanasia or 'mercy killing'? (Activity 3.4)

This is an open-ended ethical reflection question, without one single 'correct' answer, that asks a student to weigh a patient's autonomy and quality of life against medical, familial, ethical and cultural beliefs about death — beliefs the chapter shows differ substantially across cultures. …

This activity asks students to reflect personally on one of the most difficult ethical questions connected to death and dying — whether to withdraw life support from a critically ill patient showing no improvement, and more broadly, what view to take on euthanasia or 'mercy killing.' As an open-ended discussion prompt, it does not have one single correct answer, but a thoughtful response should draw on the chapter's broader treatment of death, dying, and cultural difference in old age.

The chapter notes that although death is statistically more likely to occur in late adulthood, it can in fact occur at any point during development, and that the deaths of children and younger adults tend to be perceived as more tragic than deaths among the elderly, in part because they are seen as premature and often the result of accidents rather than the chronic disease more typical of death in old age. When a person is very elderly, or has been critically ill for a long period with no improvement, questions of quality of life, dignity, and the burden of prolonged suffering (both on the patient and on their family) become especially pressing, and this is exactly the terrain the euthanasia debate occupies.

A balanced response to this question would consider several distinct kinds of argument. In favour of allowing withdrawal of life support or permitting euthanasia in carefully defined circumstances: respecting the patient's own autonomy and previously expressed wishes; preserving dignity and relieving prolonged, irreversible suffering; and recognising the genuine emotional and, often, financial burden of extended, hopeless treatment on a family. Against: the principle that life has intrinsic value regardless of its quality (a 'sanctity of life' position); the risk that legalised euthanasia could be misused or applied to vulnerable patients under pressure; the medical uncertainty involved in ever being fully certain that 'no improvement' means no possibility of future improvement; and religious or cultural beliefs that treat the ending of life, even to relieve suffering, as morally impermissible. …