In “Active and Passive Euthanasia,” author James Rachels argues that active euthanasia is no worse than passive euthanasia and that the American Medical Association (AMA) policy supporting the conventional doctrine is incorrect. He defines both active and passive euthanasia. Rachels then makes four arguments to prove his point: Active euthanasia is a more humane alternative to that of passive; the conventional doctrine allows physicians to end lives on reasons that are completely unrelated; there
discussing arguments for and against ADOTTI a brief indication for the rise in demand for ADOTTI to be legalised will be presented. I will look at the background that has given rise to the perceived need to practise euthanasia today. How this impacts on all of us; personally, sociologically, morally, ethically, legally and medically. Paul Badham’s book “Is there a Christian Case for Assisted Dying” (2009) will form much of the core of material in this section with regard to arguments for ADOTTI.