In class today, we had a discussion about the case with the murder of the young girl by her father. That lead us into the discussion of whether or not the death of the young girl, and cases similar to it should be classified as a killing or as a case of letting someone die. The class presented interesting distinctions between the two groups, but I personally think that a killing can be intentional or unintentional, but when one makes a decision to let someone die, it is intentional, because there is a choice that is made over the person’s life.
When discussing the Case 6.2, about the woman from Canada who wanted to die once her condition deteriorated, one issue that came up with the case was whether or not a physician assisted suicide is a form of killing. It was an issue because a physician has the duty to never cause harm to a patient. From our discussion in class, it can be concluded as an intentional killing, but I would also add the phrase morally justified intentional killing, because the patient had a desire to die, the doctor as the physician has the duty to not cause harm, and in the case of the patient, causing harm would the psychological and physical deterioration that the patient will experience if she lives with her condition.
When looking at these cases of assisted suicide, it is important to look at the choices made, the intention of the person/patient, the expected outcome, and the justification of the case, keeping in mind that each case is relative.
Source: Thomas, John E., Wilfrid J. Waluchow, and Elisabeth Gedge. Well and Good: A Case Study Approach to Health Care Ethics. Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview, 2014. Print.
Ifechi,
I agree with your opinion that “a killing can be intentional or unintentional, but when one makes a decision to let someone die, it is intentional.” However, in my opinion, the main difference between killing and letting someone die is the presence of an action. In order for an event to be considered a killing there must be an action, whether or not intentional, that takes place. On the other hand, letting someone die involves an intentional avoidance of intervention.
We discussed two scenarios in class. In one scenario, a nurse put a cream on a patient that she did not know the patient was allergic to. The patient ended up dying as a result. In my opinion, this scenario is an example of killing because a specific action took place that led to the death of the individual. Even though the death was unintentional, the action of putting cream on the patient was still the cause of death. In the second scenario, a spy was given the option of spilling all of the secrets he had or the capturers were going to kill a boy that they had captured as well. The spy did not end up telling the capturers anything, and the boy died. I believe that this is an example of letting someone die because the spy intentionally avoided intervening on the situation to save the boy. There was no action between the spy and the boy that caused the boy’s death. The boy died by the hands of the capturer.
Many issues surround the distinction between killing and letting die since there is no clear-cut example or definition of either. However, despite different terms assigned to each death, “the difference between killing and letting die does not itself make a difference to the moral assessment of the actions” (Rachels). Both killing and letting someone die has moral issues surrounding the cases. For example, “if we consider two cases that are alike except that one involves killing, whereas the other involves letting die, it seems that there is no moral difference between them” (Rachels). As a result, while it is important to make clear the distinctions between killing and letting someone die, it doesn’t necessarily make a difference in the long run in terms of morals.
-Morgan Brandewie
Works Cited:
Rachels, James. “Killing and Letting Die.” SpringerReference (n.d.): n. pag. Killing and Letting Die. 2001. Web. 25 Feb. 2017.
Hi Ifechi,
I agree with Morgan on that fact that “killing” and “letting die” have much to do with an action versus in action. As letting die is a much more accepted way to allow patients to escape further suffering. As it is legal to a person to institute a “DNR” (do not resuscitate) which is a legal order that must be respected by medical personnel. With a DNR, once a person has “coded” or their heart has stopped beating/and or breathing there must be not attempts to restart the patient’s heart or get them breathing again. With this, the medical staff must let the patient die naturally. This would be a case of letting die. However if a patient requested that the doctor assist in his/her death, and the doctor pushed a drug into their IV (knowing it will kill the patient) would be an act of “killing”. And I do believe the difference in these cases is contingent on the action or inaction of the doctor. I feel that neither of these cases provides an intent on killing the patient. But I can see why intent can be seen in the second example I posed. However, in the case of the DNR there is no intent on letting the patient die as DNR may be against the desire of the doctor. Going against a DNR would cause the doctor a lot of legal issues, and thus the reason why he/she must respect that. But the intent of having the patient die can not necessarily be associated with the doctor’s actions. Rather, it was more the will of the patient.
-Arianna E.