The issue of medical ethics is still debatable. Its roots grow at the point where disaster takes place. A lack of training in extreme situations puts many physicians and doctors before the decision to be taken lightly and timely. This is the way where all debates spring out. Clear opinion on the way people treat the profession of a doctor (regulating medical process) and a physician (providing direct cure) should be weighed following entire pros and cons. This will lead to clarifying an independent opinion adjusted through the number and persuasiveness of arguments presented by Robert W. Donnel and Mary Faith Marshall. In this respect, the position of a physician under the strain of extreme circumstances should be weighed about the value of compassion. However, it is applicable under the circumstances of insuperable force. Mary Faith Marshall could touch upon the soul of a reader owing to her humane and self-responsibility for the cases listed in her article. Euthanasia is an ominous term to be applied in medical practice. It causes pain and it provides disregard of Asclepiades’ Oath. It is a pity that medicine is not correct in the procedures of curing patients. However, if there is no other way to move back or to get through the ominous and painful screams of patients? What should a physician do? It is, perhaps, right according to the law. Living in a law-based society no individual is appreciated to cause death to another individual (s), for it is lawlessness. That is a right and rational statement. It goes along with the line of absolutism and impeccability, i.e. stability, of law in its supremacy over individuals living within a definite society. Thereafter, one might claim if there is justice in letting a man dying when he/she dares take his/her life. Ending on a sour note, a man can conclude following by further decision-making. The ratio of what has been done right or wrong will possibly end up in nothing. By contrast, religious thought encompasses the gist of living as by the prescriptions incorporated in the Scriptures. Robert W, Donnel refers in his argument to the statement that the Christian Medical and Dental Associations address their approval of the intent to produce death but not at any cost (Donnel 81). This position is straightforward in terms of the significant human intentions and feeling to help the situation. What is more, Robert W. Donnel insists on the following interpretation of the Hippocratic Oath, namely: “I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan” (Donnel 81). In these few words, there are lots of counter-argument to reduce this statement. First of all, it is better to point out the character of a definite situation to be improved or in consequence of which physicians were obliged to neglect the oath. It considers the case of euthanasia. However hard the pain, a physician should find out the best applicable treatment to relieve the pain. This is normally advised and followed in medicine. This was a norm of Medicare in New Orleans before Katrina. However, just in a split second everything went wrong and the disaster made physicians forget about everything concerned with their life and devote their time and e