This is a very complex ethical issue, involving the balance of life, freedom, and social interests. There are several main viewpoints on this issue: 1 From the perspective of personal freedom and the right to life, it is unethical to deprive a person of their life unless they voluntarily sacrifice their life. Everyone's life is equally precious and should not be sacrificed for the benefit of others. 2. Considering the overall interests of society, if depriving a person of their life can save many innocent lives, from the perspective of Consequential Ethics, this may be the right choice. But the premise is that this choice conforms to the principle of proportionality, and the benefits generated far outweigh the losses. 3. The middle ground believes that this requires comprehensive consideration of various factors. If deprivation of life is the last resort, the number of saved lives is large enough, and the will of the victims is taken into account, then this may be acceptable. But the premise is to make every effort to find other solutions and obtain the understanding and consent of family members and other relevant personnel. Overall, this is a matter that needs to be carefully weighed in case studies. Unless there is a clear and significant conflict of interest, the option of depriving others of their lives should be avoided as much as possible. Life is supreme and should not be sacrificed easily, even to save more lives. I personally believe that if there are no other obvious better options and the understanding and consent of the parties and their families are obtained, this choice may be acceptable in certain extreme situations, but the premise is to carefully consider and avoid contempt for life. (Translated into English by machine)