Rachels states that a strong case can be made against the American Medical Association’s doctrine. His main point is that passive euthanasia is not always preferable to active euthanasia: he states that in some cases, there is simply no moral disparity linking active euthanasia and passive euthanasia. This is because they are morally equivalent at that time and it is a fact that active euthanasia may actually be better than passive euthanasia. He says that once the choice has been made not to prolong the patient’s agony, active euthanasia would be preferable because the latter would lead to an unnecessary period of suffering (Dixon 25). His most brilliant example is the instance of severe babies with severe Down’s syndrome who are given birth to obstructions in the intestines. He states that sometimes in such cases, the babies are allowed to die even though if this matter were considered deeply, we would find compelling moral grounds for preferring active euthanasia to passive euthanasia in the vastly greater degree of suffering involved in letting the baby die.