Hi, I am looking for someone to write an article on euthanasia: philosophy and the law Paper must be at least 1250 words. Please, no plagiarized work!

Hi, I am looking for someone to write an article on euthanasia: philosophy and the law Paper must be at least 1250 words. Please, no plagiarized work! The American Medical Association embraces the belief that active euthanasia is not acceptable due to the involvement of the intentional ending of a patient’s life by another human being. Many current thinkers have argued for and against this view discussing the moral acceptability of such an action and some of the most notable arguments come from James Rachels.

Rachels states that a strong case can be made against the American Medical Association’s doctrine. His main point is that passive euthanasia is not always preferable to active euthanasia: he states that in some cases, there is simply no moral disparity linking active euthanasia and passive euthanasia. This is because they are morally equivalent at that time and it is a fact that active euthanasia may actually be better than passive euthanasia. He says that once the choice has been made not to prolong the patient’s agony, active euthanasia would be preferable because the latter would lead to an unnecessary period of suffering (Dixon 25). His most brilliant example is the instance of severe babies with severe Down’s syndrome who are given birth to obstructions in the intestines. He states that sometimes in such cases, the babies are allowed to die even though if this matter were considered deeply, we would find compelling moral grounds for preferring active euthanasia to passive euthanasia in the vastly greater degree of suffering involved in letting the baby die.

Rachels challenges the doctrine that passive euthanasia is preferable to active euthanasia. he declares that it leads to decisions concerning life and death based on irrelevant grounds as to whether a person’s life should continue or not. He argues that ordinarily, intestinal obstruction can be fixed and is not a life or death matter but in the case of a baby with Down’s syndrome who has an intestinal obstruction, the baby is allowed to die because of the Down’s syndrome and not the intestinal obstruction. The presence of the intestinal obstruction in the baby becomes irrelevant due to its having down’s syndrome and it is this argument that justifies allowing the prolonged suffering of the baby before it dies instead of fixing the intestinal obstruction which would relieve it of the pain.