Like other terms borrowed from history, "euthanasia" has had different meanings depending on usage. The first apparent usage of the term "euthanasia" belongs to the historian Suetonius who described how the Emperor Augustus, "dying quickly and without suffering in the arms of his wife, Livia, experienced the 'euthanasia' he had wished for."[9] The word "euthanasia" was first used in a medical context by Francis Bacon in the 17th century, to refer to an easy, painless, happy death, during which it was a "physician's responsibility to alleviate the 'physical sufferings' of the body." Bacon referred to an "outward euthanasia"—the term "outward" he used to distinguish from a spiritual concept—the euthanasia "which regards the preparation of the soul."[10]

In current usage, one approach to defining euthanasia has been to mirror Suetonius, regarding it as the "painless inducement of a quick death".[11] However, it is argued that this approach fails to properly define euthanasia, as it leaves open a number of possible actions which would meet the requirements of the definition, but would not be seen as euthanasia. In particular, these include situations where a person kills another, painlessly, but for no reason beyond that of personal gain; or accidental deaths which are quick and painless, but not intentional.[12][13]

Thus another approach is to incorporate the notion of suffering into the definition.[12] The definition offered by the Oxford English Dictionary incorporates suffering as a necessary condition, with "the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma",[14] and this approach can be seen as a part of other works, such as Marvin Khol and Paul Kurtz's "a mode or act of inducing or permitting death painlessly as a relief from suffering".[15] However, focusing on this approach to defining euthanasia may also lead to counterexamples: such definitions may encompass killing a person suffering from an incurable disease for personal gain (such as to claim an inheritance), and commentators such as Tom Beauchamp & Arnold Davidson have argued that doing such would constitute "murder simpliciter" rather than euthanasia.[12]

The third element incorporated into many definitions is that of intentionality – the death must be intended, rather than being accidental, and the intent of the action must be a "merciful death".[12] Michael Wreen argued that "the principal thing that distinguishes euthanasia from intentional killing simpliciter is the agent's motive: it must be a good motive insofar as the good of the person killed is concerned",[16] a view mirrored by Heather Draper, who also spoke to the importance of motive, arguing that "the motive forms a crucial part of arguments for euthanasia, because it must be in the best interests of the person on the receiving end."[13] Definitions such as that offered by the House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics take this path, where euthanasia is defined as "a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life, to relieve intractable suffering."[2] Beauchamp & Davidson also highlight Baruch Brody's "an act of euthanasia is one in which one person ... (A) kills another person (B) for the benefit of the second person, who actually does benefit from being killed".[17]

Draper argued that any definition of euthanasia must incorporate four elements: an agent and a subject; an intention; a causal proximity, such that the actions of the agent lead to the outcome; and an outcome. Based on this, she offered a definition incorporating those elements, stating that euthanasia "must be defined as death that results from the intention of one person to kill another person, using the most gentle and painless means possible, that is motivated solely by the best interests of the person who dies."[18] Prior to Draper, Beauchamp & Davidson had also offered a definition which includes these elements, although they offered a somewhat longer account, and one that specifically discounts fetuses in order to distinguish between abortions and euthanasia:[19]

"In summary, we have argued ... that the death of a human being, A, is an instance of euthanasia if and only if (1) A's death is intended by at least one other human being, B, where B is either the cause of death or a causally relevant feature of the event resulting in death (whether by action or by omission); (2) there is either sufficient current evidence for B to believe that A is acutely suffering or irreversibly comatose, or there is sufficient current evidence related to A's present condition such that one or more known causal laws supports B's belief that A will be in a condition of acute suffering or irreversible comatoseness; (3) (a) B's primary reason for intending A's death is cessation of A's (actual or predicted future) suffering or irreversible comatoseness, where B does not intend A's death for a different primary reason, though there may be other relevant reasons, and (b) there is sufficient current evidence for either A or B that causal means to A's death will not produce any more suffering than would be produced for A if B were not to intervene; (4) the causal means to the event of A's death are chosen by A or B to be as painless as possible, unless either A or B has an overriding reason for a more painful causal means, where the reason for choosing the latter causal means does not conflict with the evidence in 3b; (5) A is a nonfetal organism."[20]

Wreen, in part responding to Beauchamp & Davidson, offered a six-part definition:

"Person A committed an act of euthanasia if and only if (1) A killed B or let her die; (2) A intended to kill B; (3) the intention specified in (2) was at least partial cause of the action specified in (1); (4) the causal journey from the intention specified in (2) to the action specified in (1) is more or less in accordance with A's plan of action; (5) A's killing of B is a voluntary action; (6) the motive for the action specified in (1), the motive standing behind the intention specified in (2), is the good of the person killed."[21]

Wreen also considered a seventh requirement: "(7) The good specified in (6) is, or at least includes, the avoidance of evil", although as Wreen noted in the paper, he was not convinced that the restriction was required.[22]

In discussing his definition, Wreen noted the difficulty of justifying euthanasia when faced with the notion of the subject's "right to life". In response, Wreen argued that euthanasia has to be voluntary, and that "involuntary euthanasia is, as such, a great wrong".[22] Other commentators incorporate

consent more directly into their definitions. For example, in a discussion of euthanasia presented in 2003 by the European Association of Palliative Care (EPAC) Ethics Task Force, the authors offered: "Medicalized killing of a person without the person's consent, whether nonvoluntary (where the person in unable to consent) or involuntary (against the person's will) is not euthanasia: it is murder. Hence, euthanasia can be voluntary only."[23] Although the EPAC Ethics Task Force argued that both non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia could not be included in the definition of euthanasia, there is discussion in the literature about excluding one but not the other

Normative ethics is a branch of philosophy that investigates set of ethical questions that arise when we think about the question "how one should act morally?" Normative ethics and meta-ethics differs because it investigates the standards of right or wrong action, while the meta-ethical study the meaning of the language of moral and metaphysical moral facts. Normative ethics is also different from the description of ethics (descriptive emmmpercaya killing is always wrong, while normative ethics about whether it is right to hold such a belief. In addition, normative ethics is sometimes said to be prescriptive, not descriptive. However, in certain versions of views meta- ethics called moral realism, moral facts is both prescriptive and descriptive at the same time.

In general, normative ethics can be divided into sub-field theory of moral and ethical use (applied ethics). In recent years, the boundaries between disciplines sub-discipline is increasingly blurred when moral theorists became more interested in usability problems (applied problem) and ethical use become increasingly influential.

Traditional moral theory focuses on the search for moral principles that allow a determination of whether an action is right or wrong. Classical theory in this genre include utilitarianism, Kantian, and some form of contractarianism. These theories offer melampaucapai moral principles (overarching) that one can consider how to solve the difficult moral decisions.

By the 20th century, moral theory has become more complicated and no longer just concerned right or wrong, but interested in various types of moral status. This trend is likely to begin in 1930 with WD Ross in his book, The Right and the Good. Here Ross asserts that moral theory can not say in general whether an action is right or wrong but only whether it is right or wrong tend to follow certain types of tasks such as dependency moral generosity, fidelity, or justice (he called it a prima facie duty partially correct). Hereinafter, philosophers have questioned whether a prima facie duty can also be defined at the level of theory, and some philosophers urged to stay away from making a general theory altogether, while others maintain that it is based on the theory need not be perfect to include moral awareness is important.

By mid-century, there kerumpangan long in development of normative ethics during which philosophers largely shifted from normative questions to meta-ethics. Even philosophers during this era that retains

an interest in the moral prescriptif, like RM Hare, trying to reach conclusions through reflection normative meta-ethics. Focus on meta-ethics is partly due to the strong linguistic round in analytic philosophy and partly due adjmerebaknya logical positivism. In 1971, John Rawls opposes the flow of normative theories have published A Theory of Justice. This work is truly revolutionary, partly because he hardly bothered to meta-ethical and moral arguments instead of hunting them directly. In the wake of A Theory of Justice and the work of other Main issued a normative theory in the 1970s, the field of teah see remarkable reforms which remain to this day