It is the authors^aEURTM intention to argue that some forms of euthanasia, to be exact, passive non voluntary and in exceptionally rare cases indirect euthanasia are morally permissible. However it must be noted that due to the limit of words and more importantly the authors^aEURTM lack of experience surrounding euthanasia, the claim of permissibility reflects that of the authors^aEURTM recent course readings and my emergent experience thereof. In addition to this it must also be noted that euthanasia cannot be evaluated exclusively. That euthanasia unquestionably is connected with the very questions that endeavor to understand life and death. My arguments descend from articles written by authors such as; Rachel^aeurtm, Steinbeck, Beauchamp and Foot. It is essential that one defines euthanasia in terms of the ^aEUR~good of the subject^aEURTM or that ^aEUR~death is no evil to him^aEURTM.
For if euthanasia was to mean simply ^aEUR~a quite and easy death^aEURTM or ^aEUR~the means of procuring this^aEURTM as the ancient Greeks supposed an ambiguity with awkward consequences results. Foot uses the example of a murderer, careful to drug his victim, claiming on apprehension, that his act was merely euthanasia. Euthanasia therefore must be a benefit to the subject. This point is imperative in understanding the permissibly of the two forms of euthanasia which I regard moral. Therefore euthanasia, in this essay, will be defined as bringing about the death (foreseeable or unforeseeable) of another with the intention of preventing needless suffering. Where suffering is unbearable physical pain associated with a terminally ill patient or a comatose person unable to regain consciousness.
The first form of euthanasia that I deem permissible is ^aEUR~passive non voluntary euthanasia^aEURTM. Passive non voluntary euthanasia (henceforth simplified as passive euthanasia) occurs when a patient dies due to either, a medical profession not performing a certain action that would keep the patient alive, or abstaining from an action that is keeping the patient alive. An example of the earlier would be switching off life-support machines or disconnecting a feeding tube. And examples of the latter would include not carrying out life-extending operations or withholding life-extending drugs.
There are two reasons why I suppose this permissible. The first is beneficence due to the loss of autonomy. Autonomy is defined as the "the right of self government or personal freedom^aEUR.