Rachels explains how life and death are decided on irrelevant grounds (page 3). According to him “the question should be resolved, if at all, on this basis (Down's syndrome) and should not be left to depend on the essentially irrelevant question of whether the intestinal tract is blocked”. According to him, the doctrine should be rejected because letting a child die of intestinal obstruction when he has Down syndrome is not the way to decide life or death. It should be based solely on Down syndrome and the judgment of the doctor and parents. It seems that for this reason the child is left to die and not killed. When there is nothing left to do, the child should be killed and not left to die slowly. Even though it seems wrong to kill a child, the parents and doctor believe that it would be better to let the child die, so why let the child suffer instead of killing him?