Background and Introduction The problem of euthanasia and other life-terminating procedures is one of the most contradictive points in the frame of the bioethics debates. Social attitudes toward the problem have changed significantly throughout the past decades. Whereas the question is rather complicated from the legal perspective, its ethical implications seem to be even more ambiguous. In the meantime, recent research reveals that with the legalization of end-of-life practices in some European countries, such as Belgium and Netherlands, more and more people tolerate the idea of euthanasia, and physicians gradually get used to the fact that they might need to meet one’s request to terminate their life (Chambaere, Stichele, Mortier, Deliens, & Cohen, 2015). In the meantime, a large percentage of healthcare specialists are still taken aback by the prospects of terminating someone’s life, particularly in those cases when a patient is in a coma so that there is no possibility of receiving his or her consent. As such, healthcare specialists face a critical challenge when asked to perform this procedure for a patient whose chances for recovery are close to naught. To make this crucial decision, it is necessary to evaluate all the arguments both for and against the forced life termination. Pros On the one hand, every person has a right to choose whether to terminate their life or to continue living. In the case where a client is in a comma, the responsibility for making this decision is naturally transmitted to the family. The main role of a doctor is to provide them with all the information essential for a grounded decision. Therefore, if the client’s relatives decide that euthanasia or any other procedure is the best alternative, a doctor does not bear any ethical or moral responsibility for this decision. From this standpoint, the agreement to carry out this procedure is a mere fulfillment of the assigned responsibilities that involve meeting the client’s demands. Cons Moreover, the major part of the negative response to euthanasia and other end-of-life procedures is determined by the fact that these interventions are considered to be equal to killing the person in a coma while there is still some chance for his or her survival. In the meantime, it is likewise important to analyze the question from a qualitative perspective. Otherwise stated, the non-voluntary termination of life is unethical. However, the state of a coma should not be equaled to the state of normal life since the quality of the former state is significantly poorer. Besides, research reveals that the recovery process, even if it begins, does not normally signify a complete recovery; instead, it commonly involves severe mental impairment and other functional disorders (Honeybul & Ho, 2011). As such, it might be concluded that the termination of the condition that is characterized as life but is only perfunctory can be characterized as ethical. Furthermore, the scope of a doctor’s responsibilities involves providing the medical care essential for improving a client’s health or condition. Otherwise stated, healthcare specialists are expected to cure their clients. The diagnosis of irreversible coma is commonly interpreted as the lack of prospects for further improvement (Keown, 2002). In other words, the state of a prolonged coma can be regarded as a state of a prolonged death. From this perspective, a doctor that continues to provi