367). Thus, Andrea should have been given a choice to express her wishes. If Andrea does not wish to have a quicker death to put her suffering to an end, active euthanasia should not be permitted. First of all, it would not satisfy the definition of euthanasia “for the sake of the other person” – in other words, it has to be shown that Andrea, the person in question, wanted or would have wanted it (Robert, 2004, p. 146). Thus, the act would be a murder rather than euthanasia. Kant’s deontological theory would not permit a murder. Second of all, killing her without her wish would be against ethical principle ‘non-maleficence’ – do no harm. As long as the person in question considers the life is bearable, then life itself is a benefit (Battin, 1987 as in as in Boetzkes & Waluchow, 2000). Therefore, taking her life away in this scenario would mean doing harm (maleficence) to Andrea. However, if Andrea seeks assistance in ending the misery, and with the parents’ consent in this case, by all means, active euthanasia must be permitted. Active euthanasia is justifiable, according to the ethical theories –Act utilitarianism, Aristotle virtue ethics, and Feminist ethics. According to Act utilitarianism, a right thing to do is