A Moral Difference between Killing and Letting Die - Essay Example

 In many cases a person is pushed so much to the edge that there is no hope that he will live. Such are the cases when the doctors give in and allow the patient to die by withholding or withdrawing any further treatment, but that is not regarded as killing. This difference observed in “active” and “passive” euthanasia is accepted by medical profession. Those who are against active euthanasia argue that killing is morally worse than letting someone die intentionally. It is regarded that a doctor who kills his patient directly to relief him from the ongoing pain causes death, while a doctor who stops operating the patient knowing that it will not do any good is the one who allows death. On the other hand, many argue that there is no significant moral difference between these two actions that bring about death. Choosing not to act and ignore is an action itself, and that puts the responsibility of the end result on the person. Therefore, there is no moral difference between killing and letting die, but in some cases active euthanasia is preferred. Considering the limited resources available, the letting die part can be justified. There will always be people who will die naturally or unnaturally. Nobody can escape from death, and so everybody would have to go through it someday. Those who die because of some disease there is a relevant and a genuine explanation for that. Some people will embrace death because the available sources are not enough to save them. Spending huge amount of time to save those whose injuries and diseases are so fatal that it is certain that they will die would be useless. Considering this bitter reality consuming resources for those who have no hope of surviving would be a waste. It would be better to divert these resources to someone who has a hope of surviving. The term passive euthanasia describes this approach of allocating resources to those who have a better chance of living. There is some difference between killing and letting to die. Killing is an action that involves activating the process of death and the events that lead to death. However, letting someone die is different as it involves refraining from any further actions to save the person who is already counting his last breaths leading to his death. So in this manner a person is not killed by human hands but dies of a natural phenomenon. Apparently, there doesn’t seem to be a difference between passive and active euthanasia. Deciding to withdraw from treating the patient is almost equal to injecting the patient with a lethal drug causing him to die. The motivation and the end result are the same, the only difference between these two cases, is the means of death. When the doctor opts to letting the person die he bases this decision on the future projections. Choosing not to act is itself an act of ignorance, and makes the person equally as responsible as the person who directly brings death to someone to liberate them from anymore pain. Therefore, there is no justification to make it the case of black and white. In some cases active euthanasia is preferred over passive euthanasia. Not killing someone can be a way of inflicting even more pain on that person and making it an even more painful process. However, injecting the person with a lethal drug can make this process easy and bearable. But this consists of an assumption that the terminally ill patient does not want to live anymore and wishes to be injected with the drug. Agreeing with the idea, that there is a difference between killing and letting die, results in the decision about life and death being made on immaterial grounds. Rachels (1991: 104) provides the example of two Down syndrome babies, one born with an obstructed intestine, and one born perfectly healthy in all other respects. In such cases many parents refuse to treat their babies and so both of them die. It does not seem right that an easily curable digestive disorder decides whether the baby lives or dies. If it is judged that the babies suffering from Down syndrome will never be able to live like normal babies, then both the babies should die. If not, at least they should go through the operation and increase their chances of being cured. Accepting a difference between the decision of killing and letting the babies die results in unacceptable disparities in the treatment of such babies, and so this thought should be abolished. Often some philosophers who agree with the argument highlighted above still argue that this difference, however incorrect, should be recorded in public policy and law. They believe that if active euthanasia is allowed in the society then that would weaken our belief in the holiness and significance of life. And so people will stop valuing their lives, and opt for death at even very trifle matters. Scrutinizing this argument, it seems difficult to allow the practice of active euthanasia. It is in many cases argued that refraining from any further treatment of a terminally ill patient is justified, while killing a person to free him from his pains is regarded as an action of inhumanity. The alleged difference between these two arguments is supported by the intuition that claims killing is morally worse than letting someone die. However, examples that illustrate this claim often contain other morally relevant distinctions that make it materialize this way. Considering we live in reality, there does not seem any distinction between killing and letting die, since both the motivations lead to the same outcome. Therefore, there is no moral difference between killing and letting live except the means used to achieve the end result. It is similar to two paths, both the paths lead to the same destination but one path is a short cut and other is a longer route. Though, in many circumstances passive euthanasia is permitted. But both active and passive euthanasia are morally even, and so I believe there is no moral difference between killing and letting live. Work Cited James Rachels. Killing and Letting Die. Retrieved from: http://www.jamesrachels.org/killing.pdf www.bbc.co.uk. Active and passive euthanasia. Retrieved from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/overview/activepassive_1.shtml Jesse Steinberg. (April 12, 2012). Euthanasia and the distinction between killing and letting die. Retrieved from: http://upbphilosophy.blogspot.com/2012/04/euthanasia-and-distinction-between.html Graham Oddie. (15 April 1996). Killing And Letting-Die: Bare Differences And Clear Differences. Retrieved from: http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/paper_oddie_K&LD.pdf Frowe, H. (2007) Killing John to save Mary: a defense of the moral distinction between killing and letting die. Retrieved from: http://kar.kent.ac.uk/25965/1/Killing_John_to_Save_Mary_-_TCP.pdf Eric Hodges. (January 6, 2010). Killing vs. Letting Die. Retrieved from: http://pkjournal.org/?p=745 Read More