When a patient is no longer competent or is physically ill or injured, non-voluntary passive euthanasia has been the term used for when the patients best interest is considered during the process of withholding and withdrawing life support (Varelius, p. 635). In this process death is seen to come about naturally. Arguments arise between suicidal deaths of non-competent psychiatric patient versus non-voluntary passive euthanasia and how they should not be considered different. Non-voluntary passive euthanasia is generally accepted due to deaths related to it are considered natural. The outlook on non-voluntary passive euthanasia is when the life-supporting treatment is withheld or withdrawn from, it is looked at as the death occurred because …show more content…
The patient with suicidal thoughts is unable to understand that her outlook of reality is severely distorted. I still do not agree with her reasoning on how this disorder is the same as someone in a chronic disorder such as an irreversible coma or permanent vegetative state who can not even begin to make the decision to end their own life. The thought process that I have is what decision can be made on the behalf of the patient’s best interest. Discontinuing all means of life is not unethical under certain circumstances. Passive non-voluntary euthanasia is considered morally acceptable because it involves letting a patient die while having the patient’s best interest in mind. Natural death is often referred to when a patient is of old age, illness, or injury (Varelius, p. 640). I view the suicidal patient’s death as not natural because they are ultimately taking their own life into their own hands. Varelius argues that just because this act is a result of the patient’s own actions it does not make it unnatural. I view the patient’s actions to commit suicide are intentional and can not be compared to non-voluntary