问答题 Given modern medicine’s capabilities, always to do what is technologically possible to prolong life would be morally indefensible on any ground other than vitalistic outlook; that is, that biological survival is the first-order value and that all other considerations, such as personality, dignity, well-being and self-possession, necessary take second place. vestigial last-ditch provitalists still mumble threateningly about “what the Nazis did,” but, in fact, the Nazis never engaged in euthanasia or mercy killing: what they did was merciless killing, either genocidal or for ruthless experimental purposes. The traditional ethics based on the sanctity of life——which was the classic doctrine of medical idealism in its prescientific phases must give way to code of ethics based on the quality of life. This new ethics comes about for human reason. It is a result of modern medicine’s success, not failure. New occasions teach new duties; time makes ancient good uncouth, as Whittier said.. Many of us look upon living and dying as we do upon health and medical care- as person centered. This is not solely or basically a biological understanding of what it means to be “alive” and to be “dead”. It asserts that a so-called vegetable, a brain-damaged victim of an auto accident or a microencephalic newborn or a case of massive neurologic deficit and lost cerebral capacity, is no longer a human being, no longer a person, no longer really alive. It is personal function that counts, not biological function. Humanness is understood as primarily rational, not psychological. This doctrine of man puts man and reason before life. It holds that being human is more “valuable” than being alive.