I'd say that it's homicide. Sometimes homicide is justified, and sometimes it's not. I think that defensive homicide is okay, and I think that's fairly uncontroversial.

And there's definitely a difference between directly killing someone and withholding extraordinary measures. What's extraordinary and what's ordinary will, of course, change over time with the progress of technology.

I'm not troubled by not tasking medical staffs with regulating hormones &c., as is required to keep brain-dead people alive. I'm rather more troubled by keeping them alive only to remove their organs piece by piece (but I find dead-donor transplantation morally problematic at best, anyway).

I guess I'll spend some points and advocate for murder!

"Some may question your right to destroy ten billion people. But those who understand know you have no right to let them live."

Very well. When someone I love is in that situation, I'll be happy to send you the $20k+ a week bill.

I agree, but I also think that there are circumstances where some humans are not/are no longer people. Encephalitic fetuses, accident victims with zero higher brain function, etc.

I think you were thinking of anencephaly. But I disagree. Likewise for the comatose. Ask the guy pronounced brain dead by four doctors.