It is of no opposition that doctors are life savers. Physicians do all that they can to ensure that the patient they are caring for is being treated to prolong their life and well being. With that being said, what if the doctor takes the necessary steps in doing the complete opposite? At first, this idea seems hardly permissible. Yet some might say in a situation where the patient's death is inevitable, why draw out their pain and suffering? Hence we get into the delicate and complex situation of euthanasia. There are two forms of euthanasia: active and passive. Active euthanasia is where a medical professional consciously takes action that causes the patient to die. Such as administering a lethal dose of something toxic that would quickly …show more content…
It states that “the intentional termination of the life of one human being by another” is morally wrong and that a doctor shouldn’t take action in taking their patient's life. Yet, it then goes to say that ending treatment is not “the intentional termination of the life of one human being by another”. Yet if treatment is needed to keep the patient alive and denying them treatment is going to kill them, its is contradictioning the statement completely. Mercy killing is thought to be wrong, but passively allowing the patient to die is the morally correct thing to do? As he has previously identified, there is no real difference between killing and letting …show more content…
Prolonging the life of someone who it will not benefit from it is what she calls this extraordinary treatment. The example she provides is giving a brain-dead patient in a coma a respirator. Ordinary treatment would be treating a patient who will potentially be cured of the illness that they posses. Such as using the respirator in the previous example for a patient that has a critical case of a respiratory disease. It makes the AMA policy become more transparent due to the fact that giving treatment that won’t help the patient long term means we’re not supplying an extraordinary means of