Killing And Letting Die Analysis

Alastair Norcross ambitiously sets out to see if there are conditions under the idea of a morally significant distinction between killing and letting die. In “Killing and Letting Die”, he defines the obvious complications first and foremost on this topic. He states that the distinction between killing and letting die can appear to be a specific case of a more general distinction between doing harm and allowing harm, although this cannot be justifiable all the time. Many cases of killing involve harm, and many cases of letting die also involve allowing harm. However, there are cases that defy these implications. In some cases, death does not come about by harm, therefore, in which active killing does not involve harm (Page 1). When life involved

Patient consent has now taken over and the idea of informed consent is now favorable over the Hippocratic Oath. This now brings me to my main argument that is constantly debated worldwide within the topics of the Hippocratic Oath, and patient rights/informed consent. In the medical context, is there a real moral difference between killing and letting die, and is there a distinction that carries any moral weight in the debate over euthanasia and assisted suicide? Many feel that this can be comprehended by making a distinction between killing and letting die. James Rachels, who was featured in this journal, first and foremost, states that he disagrees with the American Medical Association policy which expresses, “[t]here is an important moral difference between killing and letting” (Page 2). His main argument behind this is the notorious bathtub case. In case or situation one, a man has every intention of killing his six-year-old cousin while he is in the bathtub just for the sheer fact he would then receive the inheritance as opposed to the child. He drowns and kills the child in the tub. This action is an example of

He solely believes that dying is not a crime and physicians should be able to assist in a suicide if necessary. Many believe that the views on killing and letting die define the dispute of euthanasia and assisted suicide. If killing and letting die are both morally and ethically comparable, then euthanasia and assisted suicide are both sinful. However, I disagree with this argument. If we see the bathtub case’s actions as being equally and morally unacceptable, then we should also see no moral differences between the actions of a physician performing active euthanasia as opposed to a physician performing passive euthanasia. In the bathtub case the little boy did not want to die, therefore, a doing of murder/killing happened. Physician-assisted suicide/euthanasia fall under a completely different method of death. Passive euthanasia refers to withdrawing treatment that might delay the death of a terminally ill and suffering patient while active euthanasia refers to deliberately bringing about death to a patient. It is too often debated that doctors justifiably allow their patients to die by