In 1973, the American Medical Association adopted a statement prohibiting "mercy killing" but allowing treatment to be withdrawn at the request of an incurable patient. In his essay “Active and Passive Euthanasia,” James Rachels argues that active euthanasia should be avoided solely to satisfy the law, not because of any perceived moral difference between active and passive. Rachels' essay makes a logical and compelling argument for allowing active euthanasia in certain cases. Rachels questions the doctrine set forth by the AMA regarding intentional interruption or failure to use extraordinary means. He points out that in some cases, refusing treatment can result in more pain and longer suffering. His argument may be questionable because he neglects to discuss the possibility of increasing painkillers to alleviate suffering. In the case of an infant with Down syndrome born with other abnormalities such as intestinal obstruction, the choice is sometimes made to let the baby die. However, when the infant with Down syndrome is otherwise healthy, you are not allowed to kill him. Basically the decision is...