The topic for this research paper is ôPassive Euthanasia: Is it Immoral to Allow DownÆs Syndrome Infants With Congenital Defects to Die?ö
The thesis statement is that it is not immoral to allow a DownÆs syndrome infant with congenital defects to die.
Some of the bibliography reviewed thus far point out the controversy surrounding this topic. Legal considerations of the issue are presented by Fuch-Berman (1983), and Rachels (2002) Steinbock (2002) discusses active and passive euthanasia.
Fuch-Berman (1983) noted that a Missouri bill required the institution of lifesaving measures for newborns that were handicapped. The Handicapped infants Protection Act stated that to deny treatment of food to a handicapped newborn is a felony and parent wishes are not considered. Rachels (2002) presented the view that there is no difference between letting someone die and killing them, and therefore there is no difference between active and passive euthanasia. Rachels concluded: ôactive euthanasia is morally preferable to passive euthanasiaö (p. 198). Alternatively, Steinbock 92002) stated that there is a distinction between active and passive euthanasia and further noted that deciding not to operate on a child is not neglect and waiting for a child to die is not difficult for the child. This points to the possibility that passive euthanasia is not immoral.
The following research paper presents the topic of ôPassive Euthanasia: Is it Immoral to Allow DownÆs Syndrome Infants With Congenital Defects to Die?ö This issue is important since controversy surrounding euthanasia and the distinction between active and passive euthanasia remains and it is unclear whether or why passive euthanasia is immoral. An introduction to DownÆs Syndrome, views of passive euthanasia, and legal considerations are presented followed by conclusions.
Yang,áRasmussen, and Friedman (2002) reported on DownÆs syndrome and mortality rates in ...