Euthanasi Balance Between Good And Evil

EUTHANASIA
When we think of euthanasia we think of all the innocent lives that were taken by the hands of Hitler. Life is said to be “a balance of good and evil” but in some cases euthanasia can be a good rather than an evil. The dictionary meaning of the word “euthanasia” doesn’t reflect any good that may come.
Euthanasia means “a quiet and easy death.” Going back in history, people were sent to gas chambers to die. Nothing about this screams “quiet and easy.” Euthanasia is permanent and there is no coming back once it’s done. Foot believes that that’s the problem that society has with the word “euthanasia.” If we use the word according to its dictionary meaning then we are saying that all acts of euthanasia are quiet and easy. Which we know not to be true based on the information I provided in the beginning of the paragraph.

For example, a man who is a paraplegic wouldn’t value life as much as he would to have his life back to normal. When the basic goods of life are gone, then life is no longer associated with being a good. Which raises question to whether or not conserving a man’s life is beneficial to him. If this is true, then there shouldn’t be a balance of good and evil because evil should only be significant when it takes away from everyday life.
An example would be a disease attacking a once before healthy man, whom is now not able to function at all. Foot explains that “when evil invades the life of which the goods are already absent, then the connection between good and life may be broken.” When a man is in a vegetative state, then presumably it is neither good nor evil. Reason being is because when consciousness is gone, you’re not able to decide what’s good or evil for you. Ultimately, nothing can be taken away from you when you’re in a comma so therefore it’s not an act of evil.
In this argument Foot gives some strong evidence to support his claim. One being