Comment by Kent S. Berk
For two weeks, Wallace Goulden begged his nephew Wally to kill him and end his pain and embarrassment. Wally, a nurse and physician's assistant, refused at first. Mr. Goulden's condition worsened, however, and increased dosages of medication did not seem to ease his pain. Death and peace continued to evade him, and he continued to beg Wally to kill him. As time passed, it became more difficult for Wally to deny his suffering uncle's pleas. Finally, Wally gave in and injected his uncle with a lethal combination of prescription drugs. Wallace Goulden died two hours later in the presence of his wife and family members. Only Wally knew of the lethal injection.
This true story illustrates the problems underlying today's slayer rules. The gratuitous transfer laws of most states prevent those who participate in mercy killing from receiving anything from the decedent's estate. This Comment addresses whether one who both orchestrates and benefits from the death of another should be penalized even though her actions merely reflect the decedent's wishes. The Comment discusses whether the public policy underlying the slayer rule—which holds that no person should benefit from her own wrong—justifies the rule's continued viability. In addition, because murder is different from mercy killing, this Comment suggests that the policy of preventing a murderer from benefitting from her act should not apply to mercy killing. Finally, this Comment will attempt to reconcile the policies relating to suicide, mercy killing, murder, and property transfer in the hope of finding a way to allow family members to ease the pain and suffering of their terminally ill relatives without incurring civil or criminal liability.
Before reaching the policies for and against slayer rules, this Comment will outline the historical and current legal treatment of suicide. In addition, the Statutory Appendix of the Comment proposes an exception to the slayer rule that will simultaneously allow those who aid in certain types of mercy killing to benefit while deterring those who would kill out of greed, hate, fear, or other negative motives.
About the Author
Kent S. Berk.
Citation
67 Tul. L. Rev. 485 (1992)