An Ohio man was arrested on August 8 after shooting his wife in a hospital’s intensive care unit. 66-year-old John Wise had been married to his wife for 45 years, and they had made a promise not to live their lives bedridden and suffering. According to reports, his wife was paralyzed and suffering from an irrecoverable stroke, so Wise, keeping his promise, fired a bullet through her head. Labeling Wise’s shooting, which stemmed from his love and compassion for his spouse, as being synonymous with murder is nonsensical and seems to disregard all other factors that played a role in his decision.
Should one be punished when an individual kills a loved one to end their painful and suffering life? Experts argue that these sorts of ethical dilemmas will recur more and more frequently as the baby boom generation ages, but the answer to these questions ought to be a resounding no.
According to Donna Cohen, head of the Violence and Injury Prevention Program at the University of South Florida, two out of five homicide/suicides involved people over the age of 55. She further showed that these numbers grew among older people while it remained stagnant among those under 55. As couples become older and contract detrimental health problems, more and more would be willing to commit such seemingly egregious acts out of love and sympathy. When one is suffering from an illness for that long of a time, death inevitably becomes the preferred course of action. “Seeing a dying spouse suffering can be enough to push someone over the edge,” said Cohen.
Contentions abound over whether this sort of “mercy killing” is justified, but the current legal system doesn’t seem to differentiate between mercy killing and plain killing. One could easily suppose that since the shooting resulted in the wife’s death that the act was, as the court called it, aggravated murder. “Regardless of intent or motive, we’re bound by the fact that this is a homicide,” said Craig Morgan, deputy chief prosecutor for the Akron city attorney’s office.
But the prosecutor’s case simply disregards all the moral implications behind Wise’s action. If killing is the only way that one can minimize pain and if killing doesn’t violate the couple’s moral framework, then it is in their best interest for John Wise to kill his wife. Wise and his wife agreed that death would better than a bedridden life, and doing so, entered an contractual agreement. Merely carrying out the agreement should not be viewed as aggravated murder.
“He’s distraught,” said Paul Adamson, Wise’s attorney. “But he’s also at peace to the extent that his wife is at peace. It’s been very emotional for him.” Wise’s recent shooting seems to reaffirm this sense of unconditional love found among the aging population, the extent to which one would kill his/her spouse to end their pain.
I agree with what you’re saying. Because Wise’s wife was suffering, he needed to end her suffering, which was done by putting a bullet through her head.
Still, I’m unconvinced that what Wise did was the best option. As I know (and correct me if I’m wrong), Wise’s wife was still conscious at the time. She might’ve been paralyzed, but she could still respond. What if Wise, instead of shooting her wife, talked to her about their promise and received permission for euthanasia instead? Even though it’s a “mercy killing,” shooting someone you’ve been with for 45 years seems irrational and unnecessary.
Just some food for thought. Nice job!