The ever debated issue has again come to the forefront with a latest confession by some parents that they had requested doctors to hasten death for their suffering children, and the doctors complied, using dangerously high doses of some very powerful painkillers.

A small study has revealed that this occurrence is most common in children suffering from cancer, and mercy killing by doctors is administered only and only if the parents place repeated requests. Many renowned doctors and the American Medical Association strictly oppose mercy killing, but feel that it can be an ethical option to withdraw the life-prolonging treatments of patients who are clearly suffering and need to be put at peace.

"If there was absolutely no other option, and the patient is suffering, then why wouldn't you hasten death?" said David Reilly, a Boston-area dad whose 5-year-old son died of cancer 11 years ago.

If the child is really suffering and there is nothing else left to do, wouldn't it just be a better option to hasten death so that at least the kid can be at peace? Is there really any point just holding on to someone when there is no hope left? Isn't it just prolonging the suffering?

Some might say that mere mortals are no one to decide when one should die, and therefore euthanasia is both morally and ethically wrong, but to see someone die a little bit everyday and counting the moments seems to be a much worse thing.

For all those who will now be ready to take up arms against there "killer" parents and doctors should just bear in mind that it is probably the most difficult decision to ask someone to put an end to your child's life, and parents are compelled to do so because they want to end the pain their kids are feeling, and not their children.