Response from a Reader

Thanks to Professor Karen Stohr (Georgetown, Philosophy), who sent this e-mail:

In response to Professor Myers, one might also argue (as I would) that while intentional killing is always wrong, salpingostomy and methotrexate do not count as instances of intentional killing. I think this is easier to defend from a philosophical standpoint than the position you take below:

"Given that no matter which of the two paths I take Z is going to die, and given that it is morally permissible for me to take action A, why should we accept that it is morally impermissible for me to kill Z intentionally, thereby achieving something that is morally worthy at no cost to Z, who is going to die no matter which choice I make?"

This position leaves open the possibility that if Z, very soon to die from some incurable disease, is a perfect organ match for Y, it would be permissible to kill Z so as to take his organ to save Y. I would rather avoid this implication!