In fact, he says, the challenge of Down's syndrome (not a fatal condition) is enough to prompt parents to terminate their children's lives, a controversial claim. There is no direct evidence provided to suggest that this is an action taken by many parents. The paragraphs that follow points out that there is a contradiction in this kind of thinking by parents, because if you argue that the child's life is worth preserving, the necessity of a simple operation should not stop you from preserving it. Many times, he negates this distinction, terming it "irrelevant" (Rachels 78-80).
Next he brings up a more philosophical argument of the ethics of whether "killing someone is morally worse than letting someone die" (Rachels 78-80). This next paragraph introduces the investigation of two specific cases, which appear to be hypothetical and/or fictional in nature. He further uses these scenarios to point out the moral quandary presented by the distinction with which he disagrees regarding the difference between...
Then he returns to speaking about how doctors approach euthanasia, which is a real world context unlike the more extreme one he has asked the reader to imagine.
Later he goes back to the AMA's official policy regarding mercy killing, quoting it directly. The remainder of the essay takes pains to elucidate what the writer feels is appropriate when it comes to euthanasia. He gives an extended quote, derived from a source that is unknown. Perhaps it comes from the AMA article, but that is not stated. In the penultimate paragraph, he brings up the legal implications of this argument. His conclusion ties in the philosophical questions he has posed with the quandary with how they align with AMA policy. His final statement is a recommendation, which is that AMA should not include this in their official policy of ethics.
Works Cited
Rachels, James. "Passive and Active Euthanasia." New England Journal of Medicine. 292.
(1975): 78-80.
