The doctors aren't really deciding though. They are applying a blanket "life for all" statement to everyone they treat (unless legally prevented from doing so). To say that they are deciding would be to imply that the doctor is looking at a patients chart and saying "Well, he seems like a good person so I'll treat him. The guy in the next bunk seems like a jerk, so I'll not treat him." If that were the case, I would be very much against it and I would believe that it is immoral and unethical.
Because of that, I'd say your comparison is flawed.
I don't think that makes the comparison flawed. "life for all" is still a decision, and when applied to those that don't want to live is very comparable to deciding to kill those that don't want to die.
I mean, I get why they do it (probably legal obligations and stuff like that) but the "life must be saved at all costs" ideology really irks me. I'd personally much rather be left to die instead of forced to live longer and suffer in agony for ages, especially if it was something terminal so instead of preventing your death they're just delaying it and prolonging your suffering instead. Actually, better than that even would just be a bullet to the head, that would be the humane thing to do.
Bet Shiken that COD would outsell Battlefield in 2018. http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8749702