Euthanasia is a controversial topic that states have dealt with it differently based on their religious and social norms. These different approaches have resulted in ‘creating’ various types of euthanasia, such as non-voluntary euthanasia, which lacks the patient’s consent. This paper argues that non-voluntary euthanasia fails the legality test as it violates the right to life, the right to privacy and the right to self-determination. Also, by applying the ‘Principlism’ framework it is concluded that non-voluntary euthanasia is also questionable from a bioethical view point. By looking at three different jurisdictions: namely, a civil law jurisdiction (France), a common law jurisdiction (UK), and a Sharia Law jurisdiction (Qatar); it becomes evident that the issue of non-consent represents a dilemma that needs to be regulated. For this purpose, this paper provides a set of recommendations, that includes inter alia, developing health directives in a way that addresses potential hypothesis where a patient becomes incapacitated; and a shortlist of ‘priority’ carers whom he trusts to decide on life or death matters. This aims not only to avoid future conflicts between carers’ desires, but most importantly, to reflect –to the extent possible- the patient’s desire.