On October 2014 issue of the Atlantic contained an article by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel advocating ending the desperate medical quest for continued life after the age of 75. He was not advocating euthanasia or suicide, but only that he would personally cease to take yearly physicals, refuse vaccine, and all efforts to extend his life beyond that age. His opinion is important for several reasons not the least for which is that he is one of the important architects of the affordable Care Acts and is a chief medical advisor to the Obama administration. His analysis is that essentially, if an individual were going to do anything useful, he or she would have already done it by 75 years of age. He feels after age 75, the manic effort to keep an individual alive are not leading to a high quality of life, but rather to a life of continued enfeeblement, of both mind and body. According to his view, not only is the effort to keep one alive only extending the process of dying, but also gobbling up collective health resources that could be put to a better use. Questions: 1. Consider this in light of the right action being that which create the best outcome. If we decided to make his ideas a law, we could free up additional money for vaccines, prenatal care, and other important health initiatives. Is that the best outcome? Briefly and ethically support your answer. 2. If this makes sense in regards to the elderly, why not the mentally infirmed, perhaps the comatose? Briefly and ethically support your answer. 3. If someone was willing to pay all additional medical cost after age 75, would that be acceptable, even if it only allowed the affluent to extend their lives? Briefly and ethically support your