• Megan-Jane Johnstone.
• School of Nursing and Midwifery, Deakin University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. megan.johnstone@deakin.edu.au
• J Pain Symptom Manage. 2012 Dec 1;44(6):896-907.

AbstractIn recent years, palliative care and related organizations have increasingly adopted a stance of "studied neutrality" on the question of whether euthanasia should be legalized as a bona fide medical regimen in palliative care contexts. This stance, however, has attracted criticism from both opponents and proponents of euthanasia. Pro-euthanasia activists see the stance as an official position of indecision that is fundamentally disrespectful of a patient's right to "choose death" when life has become unbearable. Some palliative care constituents, in turn, are opposed to the stance, contending that it reflects an attitude of "going soft" on euthanasia and as weakening the political resistance that has hitherto been successful in preventing euthanasia from becoming more widely legalized. In this article, attention is given to examining critically the notion and possible unintended consequences of adopting a stance of studied neutrality on euthanasia in palliative care. It is argued that although palliative care and related organizations have an obvious stake in the outcome of the euthanasia debate, it is neither unreasonable nor inconsistent for such organizations to be unwilling to take a definitive stance on the issue. It is further contended that, given the long-standing tenets of palliative care, palliative care organizations have both a right and a responsibility to defend the integrity of the principles and practice of palliative care and to resist demands for euthanasia to be positioned either as an integral part or logical extension of palliative care.Copyright © 2012 U.S. Cancer Pain Relief Committee. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

12 keywords...

hide…