Inferred From the Content That

¶ … inferred from the content that the writer is a medical doctor or other health professional, however it is unclear from reading the article alone what the author's specific qualifications are to engender the reader's trust in his opinion. It is written in laymen's terms and not specifically geared toward an audience of medical professionals. The article sets itself as an opposing view of the accepted practice of passive euthanasia. The writer, James Rachels, starts by providing definitions of the terms to be discussed, including passive and active euthanasia.

He tells the reader that the medical community generally accepts passive euthanasia to be permissible, and active euthanasia is considered inappropriate. He gives his thesis, which is that passive euthanasia should be considered more inhumane than active euthanasia. Next he offers a passage of direct quotation from the American Medical Association to further illuminate their stance. This second paragraph primarily functions as background information and explication of his thesis. The third paragraph gives his first real-world example of a dying patient and his treatment.

He continues the example, providing detail about the family of the patient and the decision of his doctor to withhold treatment. He argues that the withholding of treatment may mean that it will take the patient longer to die, rather than the application of a more active strategy. Then writer gives an account from a doctor's perspective of watching a child die from lack of treatment, a more dramatic and intentionally emotional example.

He brings up that his opinion is that passive euthanasia is the worst of all stances to take, whereas he understands the advocacy of active euthanasia or of being opposed to all forms of euthanasia in general. He acknowledges the strong language used in making his argument. The next paragraph is transitional, designed to lead into the writer's second argument. The writer then returns to his example of infants with Down's syndrome.

He argues that oftentimes the reason that parents opt for passive euthanasia is not because of the difficulty an operation for a problem like an intestinal disorder presents. 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 killing and letting someone die. Then he returns to speaking about how doctors approach euthanasia, which is a real world context unlike the more.