Statement: Should mercy death (euthanasia) be legalised for terminally ill patients who desire it? Arguments: I. No. Ending one’s life violates basic tenets of humanity. II. Yes. Patients undergoing terrible, untreatable suffering with no chance of recovery should be allowed mercy death. III. No. Even mercy death is killing, and killing can never be legalised. Choose the option that best identifies the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
Euthanasia debates weigh autonomy and relief from suffering against sanctity-of-life principles and potential misuse. Strong arguments engage ethical principles and safeguards.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Scope: terminal illness, unbearable suffering, no realistic chance of recovery, explicit patient wish.
• Safeguards (medical boards, consent, second opinions) are presumed for any legal regime.

Concept / Approach:
Both deontological (sanctity-of-life) and consequentialist (relief from harm) considerations can be strong if framed generally and principled.

Step-by-Step Solution:
I: Articulates a principled objection rooted in the value of life and societal norms; this is a recognized ethical stance. Strong as a general reason against legalization.II: Emphasizes autonomy and compassion where medicine cannot relieve suffering; with safeguards, this is a strong countervailing reason for legalization.III: “Killing can never be legalised” is absolute and ignores narrowly tailored legal constructs (e.g., withdrawal of life support, DNR, palliative sedation). Overbroad—weak.

Verification / Alternative check:
Many legal systems adopt nuanced positions balancing I and II; absolute claims like III usually fail proportionality.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“II and III” overstates III; “None” ignores two strong principles; “All” includes weak III; “Only II” omits the strong ethical stance in I.

Common Pitfalls:
Framing the issue without safeguards; treating complex ethics as all-or-nothing.

Final Answer:
I and II are strong