Humanitarian conventions authorize the provision of care to enemy combatants, particularly those who are dying. Similarly, the United States Code explicitly excludes the provision of drugs from a list of services prohibited to terrorists, meaning that medical services are legally permitted. In defense of this authorization, I point out that it would indeed be morally acceptable for a doctor to provide medical assistance to a terrorist in critical condition. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essay This claim arises from the argument that the preservation of the terrorist's life merits that the act of providing medical assistance be morally acceptable. This is based on two premises. The first states that for a person in a critical condition, there are only two possible outcomes – to live or to die – which is already indisputable evidence – whether a dying patient stays alive or dies. Either way, it will depend on whether the doctor can provide medication or not. The doctor can opt for some chance of life for the patient (by providing help) rather than not offering it at all (by not providing help). The importance of the patient's life is explained in the second premise, which posits that preservation of life is a priority. to be desired. This is because living is permitted by the natural order of living beings. Natural law posits that this natural order must be preserved and therefore a person must be allowed to live and possess life. This means that, by nature, people are meant to continue living, so only natural death is free from unnatural external factors. The most obvious objection to the claim that providing medical assistance to a terrorist is morally acceptable is that a terrorist endangers the lives of many others. Simply put: because a terrorist endangers the lives of others, his life should not be preserved. This opposition conveys the classic utilitarian vision according to which the health, even the life of an individual, must be sacrificed for the safety of the greatest number. A utilitarian objection would assert that, on the contrary, the moral decision would be not to provide medical assistance to a terrorist because overall security brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people. Furthermore, if a doctor's concern is to preserve life, he or she should not allow the terrorist to live in order to preserve the lives of people the terrorist might harm. In response to this opposition, I propose that the confiscation of one life for the sake of others cannot be morally justifiable. An outcome (e.g. preserving life) cannot justify an act that is its moral opposite (e.g. taking or depriving life). With this in mind, I must shed light on the belief that morality is binary. This means that an act is either morally acceptable or morally unacceptable. According to this view, an acceptable act is an act that does not violate a moral code in any way, while a morally unacceptable act is an act that violates a moral code in at least the slightest way. Due to this binary nature, since the means of losing a terrorist's life are not morally acceptable, then preserving the lives and safety of others using such means cannot be acceptable. Keep in mind: this is just a sample. Get a custom paper now from our expert writers.Get a custom essayAfter considering the premises that there are only two outcomes..