In the final week of December 2000, Leo Visco, 80, of Deltona, Florida was charged with murder for the killing of his wife, Eva, who was 74. On Tuesday, December 26, Visco reportedly dressed his wife, fed her a meal, and shot her in the head with a small-caliber revolver. Eva Visco succumbed to her wounds several hours later.

According to statements by Mr. Visco, the mercy killing began as a murder-suicide pact. However, after he failed to kill his wife immediately, he couldn’t follow through with his own suicide, though he told an emergency dispatcher that he still wanted to die. There is some disagreement over Eva Visco’s medical condition. Investigators at first were under the impression that she was afflicted with cancer. However, an autopsy did not find any evidence of cancer, nor did it appear that she had any other terminal illness.

Medical examiner Thomas Beaver stated that while Eva Visco was certainly debilitated to some extent, and probably had only limited mobility, there was nothing in her medical condition “that would warrant an execution.” Visco’s attorneys say that Eva Visco was in constant, debilitating pain, and regularly cried out for help. It had been years since she’d been able to perform the simple act of putting on her shoes.

Further, she was incontinent, had poor hearing and vision, and had become nearly bedridden. This account of Ms. Visco’s health was largely confirmed by her neighbors and by her children. Mr. Visco was completely devoted to his wife, according to those who knew them well. “We all wished we had a husband or wife who took care of us the way he took care of her,” one neighbor told reporters. Although there is disagreement concerning the extent of Eva Visco’s suffering, all parties to this case concur that she did not suffer from cancer or any other terminal illness.

Is this distinction morally relevant in cases of mercy killing? That is, do you feel there’s a morally important difference between killing someone to save him or her from an unpleasant death, and doing so to save him or her from a continuing unpleasant existence? Justify your view. In your own view, was Leo Visco’s killing of his wife morally justified? Explain your reasoning. First, what would a consequentialist (utilitarian) moralist say about this act? What about a non-consequentialist (such as Kant)? Does Gula’s vision of a personalist morality help?