Advance directives are the solution to Dr Campbell''s problem for voluntary euthanasia.

Dr Neil Campbell suggests that when patients suffering extremes of protracted pain ask for help to end their lives, their requests should be discounted as made under compulsion. I contend that the doctors concerned should be referred to and then act upon advance directives made by those patients when of sound and calm mind and afflicted by no such intolerable compulsion.     

A problem for the idea of voluntary euthanasia.

I question whether, in those cases where physician-assisted suicide is invoked to alleviate unbearable pain and suffering, there can be such a thing as voluntary euthanasia. The problem is that when a patient asks to die under such conditions there is good reason to think that the decision to die is compelled by the pain, and hence not freely chosen. Since the choice to die was not made freely it is inadvisable for physicians to act in accordance with it, for this may be contrary to the patient's genuine wishes. Thus, what were thought to be cases of voluntary euthanasia might actually be instances of involuntary euthanasia.     

Doctors' practices and attitudes regarding voluntary euthanasia

We report the results of a survey of the attitudes and practices of doctors in Victoria with respect to requests for active help in dying from patients who were suffering from a terminal or incurable disease. Questionnaires were sent to 2000 Victorian doctors who had been selected at random, 869 of whom returned completed questionnaires. The survey indicates that a clear majority of those who responded to the questionnaire support active voluntary euthanasia and that many doctors have provided active help in dying. Forty per cent of doctors indicated that they would practise active voluntary euthanasia if it were legal. We compare the results of our survey with a recent telephone survey of British general practitioners.     

The ethics of killing and letting die: active and passive euthanasia

In their account of passive euthanasia, Garrard and Wilkinson present arguments that might lead one to overlook significant moral differences between killing and letting die. To kill is not the same as to let die. Similarly, there are significant differences between active and passive euthanasia. Our moral duties differ with regard to them. We are, in general, obliged to refrain from killing each and everyone. We do not have a similar obligation to try (or to continue to try) to prevent each and everyone from dying. In any case, to be morally obliged to persist in trying to prevent their deaths would be different from being morally obliged to refrain from killing all other people even if we had both obligations.     

Alberta euthanasia survey: 1. Physicians' opinions about the morality and legalization of active euthanasia.

OBJECTIVE: To ascertain the opinions of a sample of Alberta physicians about the morality and legalization of active euthanasia, the determinants of these opinions and the frequency and sources of requests for assistance in active euthanasia. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey of a random sample of Alberta physicians, grouped by site and type of practice. SETTING: Alberta. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 2002 (46%) of the licensed physicians in Alberta were mailed a 38-item questionnaire in May through July 1991; usable responses were returned by 1391 (69%). RESULTS: Of the respondents 44% did believe that it is sometimes right to practice active euthanasia; 46% did not. Moral acceptance of active euthanasia correlated with type of practice and religious affiliation and activity. In all, 28% of the physicians stated that they would practice active euthanasia if it were legalized, and 51% indicated that they would not. These opinions were significantly related to sex, religious affiliation and activity, and country of graduation. Just over half (51%) of the respondents stated that the law should be changed to permit patients to request active euthanasia. Requests (usually from patients) were reportedly received by 19% of the physicians, 78% of whom received fewer than five. CONCLUSIONS: This survey revealed severely disparate opinions among Alberta physicians about the morality of active euthanasia. In particular, religious affiliation and activity were associated with the polarized opinions. The desire for active euthanasia, as inferred from requests by patients, was not frequent. Overall, there was no strong support expressed by the physicians for the personal practice of legalized active euthanasia. These data will be vital to those involved in health education and public policy formation about active euthanasia in Alberta and the rest of Canada.     

Doctors' and nurses' attitudes towards and experiences of voluntary euthanasia: survey of members of the Japanese Association of Palliative Medicine

OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate Japanese doctors' and nurses' attitudes towards and practices of voluntary euthanasia (VE) and to compare their attitudes and practices in this regard. DESIGN: Postal survey, conducted between October and December 1999, using a self-administered questionnaire. PARTCIPANTS: All doctor members and nurse members of the Japanese Association of Palliative Medicine. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Doctors' and nurses' attitude towards and practices of VE. RESULTS: We received 366 completed questionnaires from 642 doctors surveyed (response rate, 58%) and 145 from 217 nurses surveyed (68%). A total of 54% (95% confidence interval (CI): 49-59) of the responding doctors and 53% (CI: 45-61) of the responding nurses had been asked by patients to hasten death, of whom 5% (CI: 2-8) of the former and none of the latter had taken active steps to bring about death. Although 88% (CI: 83-92) of the doctors and 85% (CI: 77-93) of the nurses answered that a patient's request to hasten death can sometimes be rational, only 33% (CI: 28-38) and 23% (CI: 16-30) respectively regarded VE as ethically right and 22% (CI: 18-36) and 15% (CI: 8-20) respectively would practise VE if it were legal. Logistic regression model analysis showed that the respondents' profession was not a statistically independent factor predicting his or her response to any question regarding attitudes towards VE. CONCLUSIONS: A minority of responding doctors and nurses thought VE was ethically or legally acceptable. There seems no significant difference in attitudes towards VE between the doctors and nurses. However, only doctors had practised VE.     

Killing, letting die and euthanasia.

Medical ethicists debate whether or not the moral assessment of cases of euthanasia should depend on whether the patient is 'killed' or 'allowed to die'. The usual presupposition is that a clear distinction between killing and letting die can be drawn so that this substantive question is not begged. I contend that the categorisation of cases of instances of killing rather than as instances of letting die depends in part on a prior moral assessment of the case. Hence is it trivially rather than substantively true that the distinction has moral significance. But even if a morally neutral (ie non-question begging) distinction could be drawn, its application to the euthanasia controversy is problematic. I illustrate the difficulties of employing this distinction to reach moral conclusions by critically discussing Philippa Foot's recent treatment of euthanasia. I conclude that even if an act of euthanasia is an instance of killing, and there exists a prima facie moral duty not to kill, and no more stringent duty overrides this duty, one still cannot determine such an act to be morally impermissible.