You seriously don't see a moral difference between taking active action to end someone's life vs. failing to take an action that will keep someone alive? That's your basic trolley problem
There are endless things that distance this from the trolley problem, but mainly starving someone to death isn’t inaction, it’s a conscious clinical choice.
It’s utterly bizarre in my mind that is what the USA settled on as a grotesque compromise. Particularly so because outside the medical setting this would still be homicide by starvation.