And you're still deliberately refusing to acknowledge the other side of the coin: that Tuvok and Neelix were still alive in a very real sense, that they were retreivable, and letting Tuvix endure would've also been "murder" by that definition.
Here is an all but equivalent example: you have two terminally ill patients - alive in a very real, indeed, literal sense.
They will be dead* in a month if you do not find a heart for one and a whole liver for the other.
If you kill another person and chop her up for heart and liver, you will save these patients.
You actually think killing a person to save these two patients is justified?
Or that watching the patients die (or slip into a coma) because you cannot save them (without killing another person) is murder?
*or they will slip into a coma - if you want to be medically unrealistic, as the star trek situation is.
So yes, I think it is simplistic to reduce this unprecedented situation to something as clear-cut as you're trying to pretend it is. I think you're ignoring everything that makes the episode so brilliant and compelling by trying to reduce it to a black-and-white issue.
Anyway, we're not going to agree on this, so we should really just drop it.
Well, apparently you do think that killing a person to save two patients is justified - or, at the very least, a morally defensible position.
And you all but said directly that watching two patients die (or slip into a coma) because you cannot save them (without killing another person) is murder - as long as the patients are "retrievable", that is.
I most definitely do NOT agree with such a position.