the baby has down-syndrome or not. That child needs to have a chance to live, even if it is not a long life, at least it had a chance. The child was never asked to be born with down-syndrome, but I think that the child should have a chance to be all that it can be, and try to make something positive of their life, and live their life to the fullest.Another example that the book gave was about the two different six-year old boys that had a large inheritance that their cousins were going to get if they died, so their cousins wanted to kill them. The first boys cousin drowned him while he was in the bath tub, and the second boy the cousin was going to drown him, but instead the boy slipped and drowned himself while his cousin watched. I think that from my moral standpoint that neither cousin behaved better than the other one because they both "killed" the little boys for their own selfish reasons. Especially since the second cousin was going to kill his six-year old cousin, but it just so happened the little boy killed himself.Even though the doctor's do not kill their patients for their own personal gain, I still believe that it is the patients decision on whether they want to live or die. I also disagree with the book when it says " If a doctor lets a patient die, for humane reasons, he is in the same moral position as if he had given the patient a lethal injection for humane reasons." I believe that if the doctor is following orders from the patient, then the doctor is doing his job.Hibdon 3I really don't favor active euthanasia more than passive euthanasia, I believe that ultimately it is the patients choice, and that the doctor should do what the patient wants. I also think that it is wrong to withhold treatment from a patient, and make the patient suffer even more. I also think that it is wrong to let a newborn baby wither to die, because that child should have a chance to live, and to be all it can be. In the long run I ...
