Final answer:
The question of whether someone can be authorized to let someone die but never for killing is an ethical debate in the context of euthanasia. Some argue that active euthanasia may be morally permissible in certain circumstances to end suffering. However, others believe it is incompatible with the role of a physician and raises concerns about potential misuse or abuse.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question of whether someone can be validly authorized to let someone die after ethical analysis, but never for killing, is a matter of ethical debate.
Some ethicists argue that active euthanasia, which involves taking deliberate action to end a patient's life, can be morally permissible in certain circumstances when it brings an immediate end to suffering. They believe that the intent and result of active euthanasia, which is to end suffering, is similar to passive euthanasia, where death is allowed to occur due to the withholding or withdrawal of treatment.
Others, however, believe that active euthanasia is incompatible with the role of a physician and the principle of doing no harm. They also raise concerns about the potential for misuse or abuse if euthanasia becomes widely practiced.
In the end, the morality of euthanasia and its authorized practice depends on one's ethical perspective and values.