The question of whether giving an individual the means to end their life and ending it for them have any moral distinction brings the question of whether commission and omission are distinct. The result is the need to qualify euthanasia or assisted suicide and suicide as either active in one sense or passive in another, positive in one or negative in the other. The two bring about the moral distinction between active killing and allowing one to kill him or herself.
The two bring about death after a moral decision has been made followed by an action. Euthanasia and suicide are morally objectionable in cases where a worthwhile life has the prospects of being saved with time. The reason against a justified direct and active act of killing is that such an act institutes a practice with the potential of extending to people who are innocent in the affair other than those whose sufferings may warrant ending their lives.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
However, the distinction between the two has a moral relevance since when all things are made equal; it becomes morally right or better to allow a patient with a terminal illness to die in peace than withdrawing life support mechanisms or withdrawing treatment and therefore actively killing them. It is also better not to allow them to take their own lives since they may not be in the right mental state to make an informed decision. Christian traditions maintain that life has a limited value rather than an absolute one. If continued support of a terminally ill patient threatens the values in spiritual and moral circles, it can be withdrawn.
Therefore, there is no moral difference between allowing a terminally ill patient to die on his/her own and doing it for them. The reason is that death is the result in both cases. However, it would be better to save the terminally ill patient from further suffering if there is no chance of recovery and if they have requested for such measures.
