A response to the prompt

Others argue that it might be morally permissible to take lives in certain special cases. There is no agreement or consensus as to what is morally permissible and what is not when it comes to euthanasia.
In this paper the issue of euthanasia will be discussed while responding a prompt in which a baby is in considerable pain and has no hope of revival. Different options will be discussed and medical, ethical, legal, and psychological reasons for choosing an option will also be presented.
There are three options available for the doctor of Stephanie. The first option involves continuing her treatment without doing anything else. The second option involves slowly withdrawing treatment and ‘allowing’ her to die naturally. The second option is a perfect example of passive euthanasia. The third option is to act now and end the life of Stephanie in order to save her from the pain she is experiencing. Below each of the three options will be discussed.
The first option will lead to great pain to the patient without any hope of medical revival. But it cannot be ignored that there have been cases where medical evidence has been refuted. This is a safe option for a doctor as continuing the treatment will not break any medical laws or will be morally questionable. But the downside of this option is that the patient will go through immense pain for no good reason and her quality of life will not improve.
The second option finds a middle way between the two extreme options, but is still not immune from moral criticism. Some might argue that letting a patient die and taking a life might be morally indifferent (Rachels, 87). This makes the second option also complicated as many also argue against passive euthanasia. However, this option is legally permissible if the decision to stop the treatment is taken with the consent of the parents.
The third option is another extreme and calls for ending