Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Physicians & Subscribers
    • Benefits for Canadian physicians
    • CPD Credits for CMA Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Physicians & Subscribers
    • Benefits for Canadian physicians
    • CPD Credits for CMA Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Editorial

Time to move on from the euthanasia debate

Ken Flegel and Paul C. Hébert
CMAJ June 15, 2010 182 (9) 877; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.100338
Ken Flegel
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Paul C. Hébert
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

In living, suffering and dying, most of us want to extend the first, minimize the second and pass swiftly through the third.

However, at the prospect of death, two views collide. The first holds that the length of our lives is in the hands of a higher power and that death can only be accepted as and when it comes. The second is that we have full autonomy over how we live and that we can choose when and how we die. We certainly live in a time when we have more potential control over our dying. But when it’s needed, the discussion about that control –– by whom and how much — seems to lead to enmeshed families at the bedside or to entrenched positions in public discourse.

Such contrasting ideas are usually superseded by a new and different form of understanding, rendering the impasse irrelevant. In Canada, as debate resumes in Quebec and in Parliament about a physician’s role in caring for a patient’s end of life, we need to reach that understanding — the sooner the better.

The way forward will require honest engagement and dialogue at a societal level. An important first step is defining the words we use.

The end-of-life debate seems burdened by confusion over the word euthanasia. 1,2 Opposing sides use it to further their ideological views: murder versus mercy; the right to live versus the right to die with dignity; selfishness versus compassion.

Deliberately crafted in 1646 from the Greek eu (well or easy) and thanatos (death), the word euthanasia was first intended to mean a gentle and easy death. 2 By 1742, a nuance was introduced referring to the means of bringing about such a death and, in 1859, to the action of inducing such a death. Modern dictionaries have various definitions, but all of them imply an intentional action to bring about death in someone who is suffering.

But this broad meaning has inadvertently enveloped actions that also involve the relief of symptoms in dying people. For example, withholding food and hydration, mechanical ventilation or cardiopulmonary resuscitation can be appropriate palliative measures. Also, administering enough narcotics to relieve pain in patients with cancer and adding enough sedation to enable comfort and minimize agitation is appropriate and compassionate care, even when the amounts required increase the probability of death.

It can be argued that, in such circumstances, death becomes an acceptable side effect of effective palliation. But it is not euthanasia.

Nevertheless, it is likely that many physicians who respond to surveys about euthanasia have such medical care in mind. Indeed, in Quebec last year, 81% of medical specialists surveyed said they had seen “euthanasia” practised, and 48% said that palliative sedation “can be likened to a form of euthanasia.” 3

That emollient word euthanasia, stitched together from classical Greek, once expressed a concept that has now become frayed and torn. It mixes ideas and values that confound the debate about dying. It is time to discard it.

It can start with us. As Kuiper and colleagues 2 and others have suggested, physicians can stop using the word euthanasia to describe the actions we might take to help dying patients and stop using such value-laden terms as starve and kill to explain those medical actions. Instead, we can clearly and dispassionately name and define each action as well as its possible repercussions.

By using each term purposefully, patients, their families and society in general can begin to recognize the differences, and we can start to create a framework for considering the risks, benefits and moral worth of each action.

Similarly, the term we choose to use to discuss a deliberate, death-inducing intervention must honestly represent both its action and its intention. Assisted suicide, for example, clearly refers to an instance in which a person helps someone take his or her own life.

As physicians, we should promote honest dialogue; help define actions and terms; avoid further polarization of this important debate with our own values and ideologies; and help educate the public to enable engagement in this very important societal issue. Then “euthanasia” can experience its own gentle death.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: See www.cmaj.ca/misc/edboard.shtml

    Previously published at www.cmaj.ca

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    Materstvedt LJ, Clark D, Ellershaw J, et al. Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: a view from an EAPC Ethics Task Force. Palliat Med 2003;17: 97–101.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    Kuiper MA, Whetstine LM, Holmes JL, et al. Euthanasia: a word no longer to be used or abused [letter]. Intensive Care Med 2007;33:549–50.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    Fédération des médecins spécialistes du Québec. Euthanasia: the key points of the FMSQ Survey. Available: www.fmsq.org/e/centredepresse/communiques/coms/20091013.html (accessed 2010 Feb. 25).
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 182 (9)
CMAJ
Vol. 182, Issue 9
15 Jun 2010
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Time to move on from the euthanasia debate
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Time to move on from the euthanasia debate
Ken Flegel, Paul C. Hébert
CMAJ Jun 2010, 182 (9) 877; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.100338

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Time to move on from the euthanasia debate
Ken Flegel, Paul C. Hébert
CMAJ Jun 2010, 182 (9) 877; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.100338
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Moving on from euthanasia
  • Moving on from euthanasia
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Les répercussions des compressions budgétaires de l’AMC sur le Groupe JAMC
  • L’intégration de la pratique sage-femme au Canada
  • The impact of CMA budget cuts on CMAJ Group
Show more Éditorial

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • End-of-life care & decisions

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • CPD credits
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2023, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: cmajgroup@cmaj.ca

CMA Civility, Accessibility, Privacy

 

Powered by HighWire