Mercy killing, or euthanasia, has long been a divisive issue. Proponents argue that it is a compassionate act, sparing individuals the agony of living with unbearable pain or incurable illnesses. They believe that death, in such cases, is preferable to prolonged suffering. On the other hand, opponents counter this view by invoking ethical and often religious principles, asserting that life is sacred and should not be deliberately ended under any circumstances.
But, what about situations where death results indirectly, not from deliberate action, but from inaction? For instance, consider a person dying of thirst. If those around them fail to provide water, resulting in their death, who bears the responsibility? Most would agree that withholding water in such a scenario is indefensible. Now, replace the thirsty individual with someone battling a terminal illness. Imagine if life-saving medication, previously provided through donors or humanitarian efforts, is suddenly withheld. The outcome is equally clear: without the necessary treatment, the patient would succumb to their illness. This leads to a troubling question: does the decision to withhold aid, knowing it will result in death, equate to murder? And if not, why not? Such ethical dilemmas extend beyond individual cases to global policies.
United States President Donald Trump, right after coming to power for the second time, initiated actions to withdraw from the Paris Agreement – an international treaty on climate change – and then from the World Health Organization (WHO) – a United Nations agency responsible for public health across the globe. On Tuesday, January 28, there were reports of the US government deciding to halt nearly all foreign aid. This decision, although not officially announced, has reportedly started affecting programs managed by the US Agency for International Development (USAID). It also implies that there will be no supply of critical medications for diseases like HIV, malaria, and tuberculosis to developing nations until sanity prevails.
Before making such decisions, the White House must realize that a nation’s greatness is not measured by its power but by its willingness to take responsibility and support those in need.
Interrupting or ‘denying’ treatment for diseases like HIV and tuberculosis risks triggering drug resistance, which would pave the way for more aggressive strains of these illnesses. The human cost is unimaginable, but the economic fallout will also be devastating, especially for developing countries that depend heavily on US aid to sustain their healthcare systems. Yet, under the "America First" policy, that seems to be someone else’s problem. Right? But do those in power truly believe they will remain insulated? Let us not forget how the COVID-19 pandemic played out in the US.
The ramifications of this decision do not stop at public health. It is bound to erode trust in the US, which has long positioned itself as a global leader in health initiatives. Over time, if not immediately, this move will weaken America’s influence on global health policy and diplomacy.
Another ripple effect could be a surge in migration, including illegal migration. History shows that healthcare crises in poorer nations often spiral into larger socio-economic disasters like poverty, migration, and political instability. These are not distant possibilities. Rather, they are the likely outcomes. These questions demand not only introspection but also urgent action not just from policymakers but also from humanitarian organizations and societies. Whether through negligence or policy decisions, the act of allowing preventable deaths challenges the very fabric of our humanity.
Before making such decisions, the White House must realize that a nation’s greatness is not measured by its power but by its willingness to take responsibility and support those in need. For America, that means continuing to play its part in addressing global health challenges and ensuring that its actions align with the values it stands for.
