Final answer:
Withholding food and hydration to hasten death represents passive euthanasia, which can be either voluntary or nonvoluntary depending on whether the patient has expressed this wish. Ethical opinions on the practice vary, with some philosophers like Singer advocating for it under certain circumstances, while others raise moral concerns.
Step-by-step explanation:
Withholding food and hydration as a means to hasten death can be categorized as passive euthanasia. This is considered passive because it involves withdrawing or withholding treatment or care (in this case, nourishment) that is necessary for the continuation of life. Passive euthanasia can be voluntary, such as when a terminally ill patient makes an advanced directive in the form of a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) order, indicating their wish not to receive life-sustaining treatment like feeding. On the other hand, when no advanced directive is present or the patient is not able to make their wishes known, it might fall under nonvoluntary passive euthanasia, where the decisions are made by others, potentially caregivers or relatives, acting in what they believe to be in the patient's best interests.
High-profile cases like that of Terry Schiavo, where a patient in an irreversible vegetative state had their feeding tube removed, have polarized public opinion and led to both legal and ethical debates surrounding the practice. Ethical perspectives on passive euthanasia vary greatly, with figures such as Peter Singer advocating for euthanasia based on utilitarian views of alleviating unnecessary pain and promoting the right to die with dignity, while others raise concerns about physician roles and the moral implications of such practices.