Euthanasia is clearly a deliberate and intentional aspect of a killing. Taking a human life, even with subtle rites and consent of the party involved is barbaric. No one can justly kill another human being. Just as it is wrong for a serial killer to murder, it is wrong for a physician to do so as well, no matter what the motive for doing so may be.
Many thinkers, including almost all orthodox Catholics, believe that euthanasia is immoral. They oppose killing patients in any circumstances whatever. However, they think it is all right, in some special circumstances, to allow patients to die by withholding treatment. The American Medical Association’s policy statement on mercy killing supports this traditional view. In my paper "Active and Passive Euthanasia" I argue, against the traditional view, that there is in fact no normal difference between killing and letting die--if one is permissible, then so is the other.
Professor Sullivan does not dispute my argument; instead he dismisses it as irrelevant. The traditional doctrine, he says, does not appeal to or depend on the distinction between killing and letting die. Therefore, arguments against that distinction "leave the traditional position untouched."
Is my argument really irrelevant I don’t see how it can be. As Sullivan himself points out, nearly everyone holds that it is sometimes meaningless to prolong the process of dying and that in those cases it is morally permissible to let a patient die even though a few more hours or days could be saved by procedures that would also increase the agonies of the dying. But if it is impossible to defend a general distinction between letting people die and acting to terminate their lives directly, then it would seem that active euthanasia also may be morally permissible.
But traditionalists like professor Sullivan hold that active euthanasia--the direct killing of patients--is not morally permissible; so, if my argument is sound, their view must be mistaken. I can not agree, then, that my argument "leave the traditional position untouched. "
However, I shall not press this point. Instead I shall present some further arguments against the traditional position, concentrating on those elements of the position which professor Sullivan himself thinks most important. According to him, what is important is, first, that we should never intentionally terminate the life of a patient, either by action or omission, and second, that we may cease or omit treatment of a patient, knowing that this will result in death, only if the means of treatment involved are extraordinary.
The author’s purpose in writing this passage is

A:to air his opinions on Sullivan’s arguments. B:to attack the traditional view on euthanasia. C:to explain how his argument is much relevant. D:to draw a line between killing and letting die.

Euthanasia is clearly a deliberate and intentional aspect of a killing. Taking a human life, even with subtle rites and consent of the party involved is barbaric. No one can justly kill another human being. Just as it is wrong for a serial killer to murder, it is wrong for a physician to do so as well, no matter what the motive for doing so may be.
Many thinkers, including almost all orthodox Catholics, believe that euthanasia is immoral. They oppose killing patients in any circumstances whatever. However, they think it is all right, in some special circumstances, to allow patients to die by withholding treatment. The American Medical Association’s policy statement on mercy killing supports this traditional view. In my paper "Active and Passive Euthanasia" I argue, against the traditional view, that there is in fact no normal difference between killing and letting die--if one is permissible, then so is the other.
Professor Sullivan does not dispute my argument; instead he dismisses it as irrelevant. The traditional doctrine, he says, does not appeal to or depend on the distinction between killing and letting die. Therefore, arguments against that distinction "leave the traditional position untouched."
Is my argument really irrelevant I don’t see how it can be. As Sullivan himself points out, nearly everyone holds that it is sometimes meaningless to prolong the process of dying and that in those cases it is morally permissible to let a patient die even though a few more hours or days could be saved by procedures that would also increase the agonies of the dying. But if it is impossible to defend a general distinction between letting people die and acting to terminate their lives directly, then it would seem that active euthanasia also may be morally permissible.
But traditionalists like professor Sullivan hold that active euthanasia--the direct killing of patients--is not morally permissible; so, if my argument is sound, their view must be mistaken. I can not agree, then, that my argument "leave the traditional position untouched."
However, I shall not press this point. Instead I shall present some further arguments against the traditional position, concentrating on those elements of the position which professor Sullivan himself thinks most important. According to him, what is important is, first, that we should never intentionally terminate the life of a patient, either by action or omission, and second, that we may cease or omit treatment of a patient, knowing that this will result in death, only if the means of treatment involved are extraordinary

A:to air his opinions on Sullivan’s arguments. B:to attack the traditional view on euthanasia. C:to explain how his argument is much relevant. D:to draw a line between killing and letting die.

Natural Health Care Natural health care is a philosophy and a set of principles and practices based on science that lead to an extraordinary level of personal health and happiness. It recognizes the unity of all life and holds that physical, mental, and emotional health cannot be separated, and that personal health, environmental health, and community health are parts of a whole. Natural hygiene (卫生学) teaches that the best way to achieve best health is right living—developing self-esteem and a positive attitude towards life; eating fresh, whole natural foods; exercising regularly; getting plenty of rest and sleep; getting plenty of fresh air and sunshine; learning to handle stress; and avoiding all negative influences of life. Basic principles: Natural health care is unique in its argument that health is normal—as simple as living in harmony with nature. Health and disease are a continuum (连续统一体)—the same physiological (生理的) laws govern the body in sickness and in health. Healing (康复) is a biological process—except in extraordinary circumstances, healing is the result of actions undertaken by the body on its own behalf. The tradition of natural health care: The traditional principles of natural hygiene are explained by Herbert M. Shelton in his Natural Hygiene: The Plain Way of Life. Shelton writes: It should not require argument to convince intelligent men and women that man can return to health and strength only upon a basis of law, natural law, specifically, upon a basis of those laws that operate to make human life possible. All laws essential to the welfare of man are written in his own constitution. Every rule of human conduct to be valued in promoting human welfare and happiness must be in harmony with his nature. No law, no social custom, no moral principle, can have any validity (有效性) for man that does not agree with his highest welfare. If it is not closely related to man’’s highest physical, moral and intellectual fitness, it cannot be consistent with his highest ideals of truth, duty and enjoyment. In Shelton’s eyes, trying to convince intelligent people that man can return to health only on a basis of natural law______.

A:may prove difficult B:is impossible C:will need a great deal of argument D:should be easy

Natural Health Care Natural health care is a philosophy and a set of principles and practices based on science that lead to an extraordinary level of personal health and happiness. It recognizes the unity of all life and holds that physical, mental, and emotional health cannot be separated, and that personal health, environmental health, and community health are parts of a whole. Natural hygiene (卫生学) teaches that the best way to achieve best health is right living—developing self-esteem and a positive attitude towards life; eating fresh, whole natural foods; exercising regularly; getting plenty of rest and sleep; getting plenty of fresh air and sunshine; learning to handle stress; and avoiding all negative influences of life. Basic principles: Natural health care is unique in its argument that health is normal—as simple as living in harmony with nature. Health and disease are a continuum (连续统一体)—the same physiological (生理的) laws govern the body in sickness and in health. Healing (康复) is a biological process—except in extraordinary circumstances, healing is the result of actions undertaken by the body on its own behalf. The tradition of natural health care: The traditional principles of natural hygiene are explained by Herbert M. Shelton in his Natural Hygiene: The Plain Way of Life. Shelton writes: It should not require argument to convince intelligent men and women that man can return to health and strength only upon a basis of law, natural law, specifically, upon a basis of those laws that operate to make human life possible. All laws essential to the welfare of man are written in his own constitution. Every rule of human conduct to be valued in promoting human welfare and happiness must be in harmony with his nature. No law, no social custom, no moral principle, can have any validity (有效性) for man that does not agree with his highest welfare. If it is not closely related to man’’s highest physical, moral and intellectual fitness, it cannot be consistent with his highest ideals of truth, duty and enjoyment. In Shelton’s eyes, trying to convince intelligent people that man can return to health only on a basis of natural law______.

A:may prove difficult B:is impossible C:will need a great deal of argument D:should be easy

Natural Health Care Natural health care is a philosophy and a set of principles and practices based on science that lead to an extraordinary level of personal health and happiness. It recognizes the unity of all life and holds that physical, mental, and emotional health cannot be separated, and that personal health, environmental health, and community health are parts of a whole. Natural hygiene (卫生学) teaches that the best way to achieve best health is right living—developing self-esteem and a positive attitude towards life; eating fresh, whole natural foods; exercising regularly; getting plenty of rest and sleep; getting plenty of fresh air and sunshine; learning to handle stress; and avoiding all negative influences of life. Basic principles: Natural health care is unique in its argument that health is normal—as simple as living in harmony with nature. Health and disease are a continuum (连续统一体)—the same physiological (生理的) laws govern the body in sickness and in health. Healing (康复) is a biological process—except in extraordinary circumstances, healing is the result of actions undertaken by the body on its own behalf. The tradition of natural health care: The traditional principles of natural hygiene are explained by Herbert M. Shelton in his Natural Hygiene: The Plain Way of Life. Shelton writes: It should not require argument to convince intelligent men and women that man can return to health and strength only upon a basis of law, natural law, specifically, upon a basis of those laws that operate to make human life possible. All laws essential to the welfare of man are written in his own constitution. Every rule of human conduct to be valued in promoting human welfare and happiness must be in harmony with his nature. No law, no social custom, no moral principle, can have any validity (有效性) for man that does not agree with his highest welfare. If it is not closely related to man’’s highest physical, moral and intellectual fitness, it cannot be consistent with his highest ideals of truth, duty and enjoyment. In Shelton’s eyes, trying to convince intelligent people that man can return to health only on a basis of natural law______.

A:may prove difficult B:is impossible C:will need a great deal of argument D:should be easy

Natural Health Care Natural health care is a philosophy and a set of principles and practices based on science that lead to an extraordinary level of personal health and happiness. It recognizes the unity of all life and holds that physical, mental, and emotional health cannot be separated, and that personal health, environmental health, and community health are parts of a whole. Natural hygiene (卫生学) teaches that the best way to achieve best health is right living—developing self-esteem and a positive attitude towards life; eating fresh, whole natural foods; exercising regularly; getting plenty of rest and sleep; getting plenty of fresh air and sunshine; learning to handle stress; and avoiding all negative influences of life. Basic principles: Natural health care is unique in its argument that health is normal—as simple as living in harmony with nature. Health and disease are a continuum (连续统一体)—the same physiological (生理的) laws govern the body in sickness and in health. Healing (康复) is a biological process—except in extraordinary circumstances, healing is the result of actions undertaken by the body on its own behalf. The tradition of natural health care: The traditional principles of natural hygiene are explained by Herbert M. Shelton in his Natural Hygiene: The Plain Way of Life. Shelton writes: It should not require argument to convince intelligent men and women that man can return to health and strength only upon a basis of law, natural law, specifically, upon a basis of those laws that operate to make human life possible. All laws essential to the welfare of man are written in his own constitution. Every rule of human conduct to be valued in promoting human welfare and happiness must be in harmony with his nature. No law, no social custom, no moral principle, can have any validity (有效性) for man that does not agree with his highest welfare. If it is not closely related to man’’s highest physical, moral and intellectual fitness, it cannot be consistent with his highest ideals of truth, duty and enjoyment. In Shelton’s eyes, trying to convince intelligent people that man can return to health only on a basis of natural law______.

A:may prove difficult B:is impossible C:will need a great deal of argument D:should be easy