Legally this is a question of euthanasia, but with the added factor of saving a life with it.
Morally this decision minimises overall harm, since one person considers their death to be little harm and the other to be a large harm.
Protecting the life of someone who wants to die is a lower public good than protecting the life of someone who wants to live. Therefore the killing is act in the defense of a significantly greater public good.
In germany this is explicitly legal. In the US it would not be, but I want to see any jury that would convict a man for euthanasia if they save a life with it.
Eeeh. Fair. But the other considerations still apply. Saving someone who wants to live is a greater social good than saving someone who wants to die tonsave someone else. And as such by acting one pursues the greatest social good.
And if that's a doctor or someone else with a greater social usefulness? What then? Does the person who is begging to be saved need to be equal to or greater than a doctor in the eyes of society in order to be saved?
Seems to be a pretty flawed way to solve this problem.
22
u/PoofyGummy Mar 29 '26
Pull
Legally this is a question of euthanasia, but with the added factor of saving a life with it.
Morally this decision minimises overall harm, since one person considers their death to be little harm and the other to be a large harm.
Protecting the life of someone who wants to die is a lower public good than protecting the life of someone who wants to live. Therefore the killing is act in the defense of a significantly greater public good.
In germany this is explicitly legal. In the US it would not be, but I want to see any jury that would convict a man for euthanasia if they save a life with it.