The Supreme Court says that no man shall take the life of another man without punishment.

The Bible
says, "Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 20:13), yet humans are still the only species that kills their own kind.
Murder is wrong. Murder is unlawful. Barbara Huttmann believes that there is a time when living has
just gone too far. Her essay "A Crime of Compassion" addresses these points and this very controversial
question: When is it lawful and moral to take the life of another person?

Barbara Huttman’s “A Crime of Compassion” has many warrants yet the thesis is not qualified. This is a
story that explains the struggles of being a nurse and having to make split-second decisions, whether
they are right or wrong. Barbara was a nurse who was taking care of a cancer patient named Mac. Mac
had wasted away to a 60-pound skeleton (95). When he walked into the hospital, he was a macho police
officer who believed he could single-handedly protect the whole city (95). His condition worsened every
day until it got so bad that he had to be resuscitated two or three times a day. Barbara eventually gave
into his wishes to be let go. Do you believe we should have the right to die?

The title of her essay poses a contradiction to the point she attempts to establish through the essay. The
title clarifies compassion, and thus her act, as a crime, consequently agreeing with those who made
accusatory comments, such as “What gives you the right to pay God,” (Huttmann 2) on the Phil Donahue
show. This contradicts her justification of her action as one out of compassion within the essay. In her
essay, she argues that her compassion allowed her to eventually cease prolonging a man’s life, thus
ending his suffering and giving him peace at last. Therefore, her act of not pressing the button that
would have issued a “code blue” and resulted in resuscitation of the man until it was too late to bring
him back was not a crime, but an act of compassion. By prolonging Mac’s life, they had not helped him,
but had only succeeded in creating additional pain to both him and his family. The patient had himself
begged “Mercy…for God’s sake, please let me go” (6). Just because we have the means to prolong life
and cheat death does not provide the right or need to use it. Huttmann argues that we have the right to
die and by respecting this right, her act of compassion is consequently justified.

Murder is still a crime, and there is a fine line between murder and a "Do Not Resuscitate" (DNR) order
from a Doctor. The state of Montana tried and convicted Dr. Kavorkian of murder just because he
helped sad, tired and suffering patients end all of their pain, by killing them. Is this murder? Maybe,
Kavorkian killed suffering victims. He had their permission, but nonetheless, he ended their life. DNR is
different. While I have never had cancer, like "Mac" in the essay, or any other terminal illness for the
matter, I can sympathize for the patient and his family. Whether the patient believes in an after life or
not, death is a part of life. While Barbara was required by hospital guidelines to report all "Code Blues",
it is not morally wrong. But, in most states, unless the patient prior to the accident has signed a DNR,
you must do whatever it takes to keep them alive. That is not moral, that is legal. But where do you
draw the line? Barbara said hat she resuscitated Mac "52 times in just on month" (3). Should there be a
number that once reached, an understood DNR is in place? Or do we continue to treat only the
symptoms of terminal illnesses and send patients back home to suffer?

In my opinion, if a person is terminally ill and there is no chance of bringing them back then they should
have the right to make the choice whether they want to be kept alive or let go. What is the point of
sitting in a hospital for the rest of a person’s life if they are not going to be able to do any thing? This
claim is supported throughout the entire text through her believes in religion. And every night I prayed
that his agonized eyes would never again plead with me to let him die (96). Barbara talked about how
she wondered about a spiritual judge, and by this, it shows that religion is an important part in her life.
Several times in the text, he begs to be let go so his suffering could be come to an end. Some would ask
why we would not have the right to die. How enjoyable could life be when a person must be
resuscitated fifty-two times in just one month?

The point is that it is not fair to make someone to offer through pain day in and day out, just waiting to
die. The Constitution has a law against cruel and unusual punishments: Does terminal illness count? Can
they not just be allowed to die peacefully? Barbara uses emotional tactics to sell her ideas and convey
her point. By attacking the reader's heat, it is much easier to win the "right or wrong" battle, because
everyone can relate to death. By using extreme adjectives and figurative metaphors, the reader has no
choice but to want to reach out not only to Mac and his family, but also to Barbara, for she loved "him,
his wife, Maura, and their three kids as if they were [her] own"(5). She had suffered right along with him
through all of this. Death is sad, and it might not be fair, but dealing with death is far easier then dealing
with pain and suffering of a loved one.

Throughout Huttmann’s piece, her main arguments unfortunately only suggest that her decision was
justified. This can lead readers to believe that Huttmann inevitably wrote this piece to direct attention to
why she should not be accused of murder. Huttmann only once, recognized herself as possibly guilty,
but overall continued to suggest that under the circumstances, her reasoning for Mac’s death was valid.
The alternate position to which Huttmann did not include in her writing, is that even if there was a law
or a “Do not resuscitate” order, her actions still would’ve been interpreted as murder. Whether or not if
it were legal, Huttmann still would have been taking a life from another person, which inevitably is
classified as murder.

Consequently, Huttmann was accused of murder but feels justified in her reasoning of assisting Mac to
die, as it was truly his wish. Her overall purpose was to address the issue of healthcare, and how the
personal decision to end your own life at this time was denied. She addressed this problem, but did not
fully express this in her writing. Huttman only partly demonstrated the intention, or claim of her piece,
which confronted that in conditions such as Mac’s, a person should have the right to end their own life.
She emphasizes that until these changes are met, more patients like Mac would continue to suffer the
unfair consequences. Huttmann effectively established pathos, and in using this strategy it became an
effective way to allow the readers to commit to the reading. In committing to her story, the audience
began to side with Huttman, which nonetheless was ultimately her objective in the story. However, the
essential issue within Huttman’s writing was ironically the overpowering use of pathos. In her story, the
use of pathos directed the audiences attention away from her argument, and more towards her story of
Mac.

Eventually, this created a very vague argument, and became difficult and unclear for the reader to
understand. Huttman’s message about healthcare is relatively dismissed and remains in question near
the end of the story. In creating a vague argument, no direct solution to the problem is announced. The
reader is left with no resource or information on how to fix, address, or prevent the issue from further
continuation. Huttman’s use of pathos serves to be effective in entertaining the audience but ineffective
in developing a strong argument for her readers. Was Huttmann’s piece truly written to enlighten
readers of a societal issue among hospitals and healthcare? Or was her true purpose to persuade
readers of why she made the impactful decision she did, and why her decision is justified? Huttmann’s
story could’ve better clarified these questions to better defend her claim and introduce a powerful
contentious topic

Barbara Huttmann may have broken hospital policy that day, but the truth is, she did her friend Mac a
favor. He wanted it, the family wanted it, and she wanted it. Medical technology, while unbelievably
spectacular, is sometimes a nuisance. Mac deserved to be left along. He was tired of pain, tired of
suffering, and tired of delaying the inevitable. Murder and assisting death are one thing, but this is just
allowing life to run its course. Sometimes it is just time. Time to let go, and time to move on. Barbara
Huttmann is not guilty of murder. Her only crime is compassion.