Not as I see it. I think to call it Euthanasia, is not rational. Euthanasia infers the killing of living thing that was compromised medically or would have lived without intervention at the very least.
Hastening a impending death by not intervening medically could be considered killing by some, but certainly not murder by law.
In my opinion, if the death of a person is certain, hastening that death by a few days to protect the viability of needed organs that will add many years to the quality of life for multiple people is a rational thing to contemplate, assuming the person making the donation has agreed upon the terms in advance of his/her demise.
This is the root rationality of the donor system, and in this particular case, the family was not able to comply with the donors wishes and now is trying to shift the responsibility to the hospital and doctor. The fact that the family was not able to comply, happen all the time, but to try to shift the responsibility to the doctor, seems quite petty and egregious to me.
This is not rational. It is hypocrisy and emotional laden clap-trap.
It is rational to contemplate. However, on balance, I go with the "slippery slope" position. Using the strict brain death criteria has far less abuse potential. True brain death is not as rare as you suggested in an earlier post.
Practically speaking, the greater good you speak of is being diluted. Many of these organs are being transplanted into patients who, themselves, are "terminal." There is too much money changing hands with the current system.
bullshit .... when you are laying on that slab and look at how you might be 'harvested' a few days early you WILL think differently.
If these organs are so valuable, then why doesn't the family get paid for them???