According to Jan Narveson, "euthanasia occurs when one person brings about the death of another in the belief that the latter's death is a good to that person" (Narveson, 1999). His arguments surrounding euthanasia bring about valid concern and entity. He presents a generally neutral argument in creating a philosophical overview that incorporates logical and rational thinking of the general population. Throughout his discussion, he presents six valid arguments upon which each one differs one from the other in a succinct manner.
The first argument draws upon the distinction between euthanasia and several other related issues. For one, it was stated by Narveson that it can be questioned if it is even morally just to "ease" ones death of an individual who is dying anyway. Or whose condition is at any rate so severe that the patient would have induced suicidal thoughts. However the case may be, it's sufficient enough to say what does not constitute as euthanasia. Euthanasia does not question eugenics, nor of murder, or of allowing human vegetables to die; in addition to nor questioning what to do about defective newborns (1999).
The second, which is a standard case of euthanasia, is one in which one has the consent, or even the request of the patient to "ease" his/her passing in the event of illness and near death. In such an instance, the patient is already said to be dying and suffering, or is placed in an unbearable existence in which he/she prefers to not have to endure. Thus, in an instance where that person is in a position of rational suicide, if they are unable to act, then someone else must act if he/she cannot do so in their own power. Narve ...