Humanitarian conventions allow for the provision of medical care to enemy combatants, particularly those who are dying. Likewise, the United States Code explicitly excludes the provision of medicines from a list of prohibited services to terrorists, meaning that medical services are legally permitted. In defense of this authorization, I would like to point out that it would, in fact, be morally acceptable for a doctor to provide medical care to a terrorist in critical condition. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayThis statement arises from the thesis that preserving the terrorist's life deserves the act of providing medical care its moral acceptability. This is based on two premises. The first states that for a critically ill person there are only two possible outcomes – living or dying – which is already an indisputably obvious fact – that a dying patient either stays alive or dies. Whatever happens will depend on whether the doctor is able to provide medicine or not. The doctor can opt for some chance of life for the patient (giving help) rather than no chance (not giving help). The meaning of the patient's life is explained in the second premise, which assumes that the preservation of life is a desired being. This is because living is permitted by the natural order of living beings. Natural law assumes that this natural order must be preserved and therefore a person should be allowed to live and possess life. This means that, by nature, people are destined to continue living, such that the only natural death is free of unnatural external factors. The most obvious objection to the claim that providing medical care to a terrorist is morally acceptable is that a terrorist puts his life in danger. lives of many others. Simply put: Since a terrorist puts the lives of others at risk, his life should not be preserved. This opposition brings with it the classical utilitarian view that the health or even life of one must be sacrificed for the safety of many. A utilitarian objection would state that, instead, the moral decision would be to not provide medical care to a terrorist because overall safety results in the greatest happiness for 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 to preserve the lives of people whom the terrorist might harm. In response to this opposition, I argue that the confiscation of a 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). In light of this, I must shed light on the belief that morality is binary. This means that an act is morally acceptable or morally unacceptable. From this perspective, an acceptable act is one that does not violate a moral code in any way, while a morally unacceptable act is one that violates a moral code at least minimally. Due to this binary nature, since the means of confiscating the terrorist's life are not morally acceptable, the act of preserving the life and safety of others using such means cannot be acceptable. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper now from our expert writers. Get a Custom Essay Having considered the premises that there are only two possible outcomes and that preservation of life must be achieved, I conclude that the act.