Starvation is a form of euthanesia for comatose patients. It does not require anyone to actively kill the person in question, thus no one has to feel bad about being a killer. That's the idea behind it.
If the person does not even have the brain responses necessary to feel the starvation I do not see a problem with it.

Oh thanks,
I assumed it was in the context of an animal which was just too sick to easily look after. I should have probably put two and two together and realised he was talking about people in comas. Does that still count as euthanasia? Euthanasia is illegal here in England and I think people in comas still get unplugged and allowed to die once there is no realistic hope of them ever waking up.

That's the only situation where I think that euthanasia is moral and that's when they are just being kept alive by a plug.

I agree that there is nothing really wrong with it, but I think that if you are going to give someone a drawn-out death by starvation, you should actually just end their life immediately. I mean, otherwise it's just a wast of resources. And if the outcome is the same, then the person who decides to kill them should take responsibility and accept guilt, or whatever emotion they get. Using an technical loop-hole like "i didn't actively kill them" is just cowardly.

If an animal is going to suffer then die anyway, may as well kill it. They may not want to die but that's because they don't have the thought process that they will die in pain anyway. Make it quick so they don't suffer.