Euthanasia. A word which here means, “The painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma.” The practice is illegal in most countries. Yet, the demand is still there. This begs the question, Why? One would be forced to slowly and painfully deteriorate whilst their family watched on the .02% chance of recovery. Conversely, in Lennie’s case He would have either been killed by the rest of the town or, if he and George had decided to run there was always the chance Lennie would unknowingly strike again. Which sets up another question, would you choose to watch/ wait for the inevitability of death while your friends and family watch you round the corner? If you knew with 100% certainty that…show more content… Lennie also didn’t self administer, so there are a whole other set of rules. To which some arguments against euthanasia would be valid. Like Peter Kavanagh's argument, “Legalising euthanasia would have a wide range of profoundly detrimental effects. It would diminish the protection offered to the lives of all. It would allow the killing of people who do not genuinely volunteer to be killed, and any safeguards, although initially observed, would inevitably weaken over time.” Lennie’s death would be a weakened/ ultimately ignored safeguard. But was George’s sacrifice a necessary evil? As John Steinbeck put it, “George let himself be helped to his feet. ‘Yeah, a drink.’ Slim said, ‘You hadda, George. I swear you hadda. Come on with me.’ He led George into the entrance of the trail and up toward the highway.” Slim and George both knew that there was much worse coming to Lennie if George hadn’t done what he had
