Palliative care on the 'slippery slope' towards euthanasia?

The response to our position paper on palliative care and euthanasia ¡/ 55 commentaries, from 32 countries, in the March 2003 issue of Palliative Medicine ¡/ has been remarkable in its breadth and variety. Moreover, a most welcome s̀ide effect’, as it were, is that many commentators also take the opportunity to provide important information about the development and recent state of palliative care services in their home country as well as giving an overview of the euthanasia debate, or lack of such, in their own context. The reactions are as diverse as there are authors, one could say. Some think we have made a contribution at the conceptual level that will greatly help the debate worldwide as well as in their own country. Others see a contribution that is relevant to clinical practice (the paper `will help our day-to-day practice’, Malas, p. 150). Whilst a further group think our definitions simply mess things up. To illustrate, van der Wal values our contribution concerning concepts and clarity, saying that Ì am glad that the Task Force suggests, with regard to euthanasia, that the adjectives `voluntary’, `active’ and `passive’ should no longer be used . . . The argumentation is valid. In the spoken and written word this will avoid many unnecessary misunderstandings’ (p. 110). On the other hand, Billings is of the opinion that we have `confused some important definitions and distinctions’ (p. 105). While HaÈnninen states: Ì do not think that the Task Force’s report brings anything new to the discussion’ (p. 166). In other words, to him, we neither make things clearer nor more muddy! Interestingly, support comes both from those who favour the legalisation of euthanasia and from those who oppose that ¡/ as does attack and rejection of our stance. The EAPC Ethics Task Force‘s reply to critics