Thought and debate about euthanasia obviously involve different conceptions of what a human person is. Suppose Grandfather has a stroke, his son and daughter call the ambulance, and he is brought to the hospital. As a result of the stroke he loses significant memory and becomes demented. Suppose he no longer recognizes his family and can no longer carry on a conversation. Members of his family come to visit him. They spontaneously react: “That's just not Grandfather anymore. Grandfather – the lovable, affable person we have known for years – is just not there any more!” Understandable reaction. But some proponents of euthanasia articulate this reaction into an argument. It is wrong to kill persons (they argue), but the person who was living at his family's home exists no longer. True, it would be wrong to kill Grandfather, but that (meaning the human organism now hooked up to various tubes in the hospital) is not Grandfather. So, a week later the doctors in charge propose that this isn't really Grandfather any more either and that therefore we should withdraw nutrition and hydration (though his system is still metabolizing the nutrition). Keeping this organism alive who, or which, is not Grandfather, and is not a person, is futile. Proponents of euthanasia add that the doctors should be allowed to hasten the demise of this organism by more active methods. In short: it is not a person, so it is not murder to kill it.