The prohibition against taking human life is based on fundamental and deeply held ethical and religious beliefs. In this essay, I will discuss the options available to the doctors, and whether they are able to stop Sadia's treatment, and if so, the ethical questions will arise. "Dying is an integral part of life. ...the right to die with dignity should be as well protected as any other aspect of the right to life. State bans that would impose a terrible and painful death on a terminally ill patient , rational but incapable, are an affront to human dignity. Furthermore, the choice of manner of death could be included as an aspect of the right to life, but the interests of the State and society would justify interference in this. law, as seen in Pretty v UK To suggest producing a single definition of death by medical intervention is impossible and perhaps undesirable given that there is adequate justification for all the approaches advocated. The legal definition of death comes from the case of Airedale NHS Trust v Bland which established that brainstem death was the definition of death for the purposes of medical law. Ford argues that the right to die embodies a critical paradox. of personality, which consists of conscience, self-awareness and the ability to engage with others. Harris, however, argues that there is no personality paradox because the criteria are defined based on abilities that allow the person to value their own existence. People have different views on the right to die based on their own ethical logic, which is why it is difficult to determine when someone has the right to die or not, because everyone has points of view. contradictory views in society. paper ......o decide. They will need to consider Sadia's well-being as paramount, but taking into account the ethical issues mentioned above. It is unlikely that Sadia will develop and get better with the support provided to her, but the judge could decide to keep her alive, but having to provide that support could be an endorsement of the status quo. Thus, in order to preserve the integrity of doctors, the decision could allow them to refuse treatment if they believe that they cannot conscientiously administer the treatment due to the infant's quality of life. Their opinions therefore deserve respect, but do not necessarily have to be conclusive. When the child's future is completely bleak and doctors conclude that there is no benefit in continuing treatment, then treatment may be withheld, even if it results in the child's death..