Which statement captures a common argument against voluntary euthanasia?

• A. Killing is worse than letting die, so administering a lethal injection is wrong, while disconnecting a feeding tube may be permissible.
• B. Killing is morally permissible if the patient consents.
• C. There is no moral difference between intending death and foreseeing it.
• D. Foreseeing death is always wrong.

Answer: (A)

The main concept tested is the moral distinction many people draw between actively killing someone and letting them die by withholding or withdrawing treatment. This is a common objection to voluntary euthanasia: administering a lethal injection is seen as a direct act of killing and often judged morally worse, while choosing to disconnect a feeding tube or withhold life-sustaining care is viewed as allowing death to occur rather than causing it, and in some ethical views may be permissible even with patient consent. The option captures this familiar line of argument by asserting that killing is worse than letting die and that the former is wrong while the latter may be permissible. Other choices reflect different positions—consent permitting killing, or debates about intention versus foreseeing death, or the claim that foreseeing death is always wrong—which address related, but distinct, ethical questions and do not as directly convey the common euthanasia objection about active versus passive acts.