Defend or criticize the claim, There is no significant moral Essay

Defend or criticize the claim, There is no significant moral difference between killing and letting die - Essay Example 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