In other cases, the person to be given euthanasia does not have the power to make a decision. This may happen, for example, if he/she is in a state of a comma, or else, he/she is conscious but is fully paralyzed and can do nothing more than fed artificially. According to (Cavan and Dolan 12), euthanasia can be defined as, “the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (such as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy.” As this definition indicates, all possible measures are exercised in euthanasia to ensure that it takes the victim minimum pain and labor to die. It is obvious that the victim is given euthanasia by another person.
Issues like euthanasia should be dealt with extreme care and delicacy particularly in the present age when people have grown much conscious about health and safety issues and ethics is considered a priority in every act an individual indulges in. “All forms of euthanasia, voluntary or involuntary, should be condemned until death is chosen for an individual by law because of his/her criminality.”
It is useful to discuss certain types of euthanasia before making an in-depth analysis of the ethical consideration of this dilemma because people tend to argue for or against euthanasia without distinguishing between the various conventional forms of euthanasia. There are two fundamental types of euthanasia depending upon the presence or absence of the will of the person being given euthanasia. These two types of euthanasia are called as the voluntary and non-voluntary euthanasia (Dyck). It may seem surprising that there are people who tend to have euthanasia willingly, though it is true and there may be many reasons for that. Euthanasia which is given after seeking due permission from the victim is termed as the “assisted euthanasia”.