Passive euthanasia is a controversial ethical issue with many arguments for and against .These arguments need to be closely assessed in order to make a final decision of whether allowing the human to die naturally is the most humane option available. After closely examining passive euthanasia in relation to the Terri Schiavo case, along with Lawrence Kohlberg’s theory and secular theories such as Utilitarianism and the legal perspective and the Catholic and Muslim perspective, I have come to the conclusion that passive euthanasia is most definitely not an ethical act if the patient merely requires the basic human needs to maintain life, along with basic medication and operations. Kohlberg’s Theory suggests that people who want to end their life or help to end a sick family member’s life are on the post-conventional stage where they are only considering their needs and wants and fail to consider the pain it will bring to others. Likewise, the Catholic and Islamic church believes passive euthanasia is not morally ethical, and people who commit passive euthanasia are going in contradiction of their higher power. In comparison, the secular theories have citizens for and against passive euthanasia and use the theories in relation to their belief. However, I have also concluded, if the sick patient is suffering immensely and requires extraordinary practices in order to stay alive and the family truly believes passive euthanasia is what the patient would want, I believe that it may be the best ethical option. Moreover, by promoting palliative care as a viable option for the families who have sick family members, the sick will be provided with ongoing care, support and pain relief. (Australian Government) These palliative care units will deliver morally correct options which will allow the patients to leave the world with a sense of dignity and self-worth and offer relief and appreciation from their loved ones.