By Dave Andrusko

I have a rule of thumb that I apply judiciously but, I think, effectively. Whenever somebody tells me that they want to "promote honest dialogue," I am instantly on alert. Almost inevitably, it means that they are positioning themselves as having a "middle" position which, in fact, largely adopts one-side of a debate.

So it is that when the journal of the Canadian Medical Association proposed, in effect, to euthanize the word "euthanasia" (allow it to "experience its own gentle death"), I knew I was getting snowed.

Written by Senior Associate Editor Dr. Ken Flegel and Editor-in-Chief Dr. Paul Hebert, the editorial's revealing headline is, "Time to move on from the euthanasia debate." As always context is crucial.

According to a column in the Toronto Sun, "With a private member's bill on 'dying with dignity' in second reading in the House of Commons, CMAJ editor-in-chief Dr. Paul Hebert said end-of-life questions are now 'top of mind' in the political arena," Christina Spencer wrote. "The Quebec government is also studying the issue."

Put another way, if the skids are going to be greased, words that speak the truth or invoke emotion must be banished to the outer darkness. So, as part of "defining the words we use," what has to go? The use of the word "euthanasia," which is "burdened with confusion."

Used to be so innocuous--"gentle death." This "emollient word stitched together from classical Greek, once expressed a concept that has now become frayed and torn," Flegel and Hebert write. How so?

Now "euthanasia" is incorrectly used both to cover "intentional action" (such as assisted suicide) and "actions that also involve the relief of symptoms in dying people," according to the authors. This "mixes ideas and values that confound the debate about dying."

Some of their examples of what they claim is "the relief of symptoms in dying people" are at least debatable. But we will never agree that "withholding food and hydration" is an example of "appropriate palliative measures."

So, coming full circle, what is "honest dialogue," in the opinion of Drs. Flegel and Hebert? Well it "avoid[s] further polarization of this important debate with our own values and ideologies."

But then they tell us that we "must stop using such value-laden terms as starve and kill to explain those medical actions," what is it but a classic example of a value-laden recommendation? It's akin to labeling vibrant, developing human beings as "fetuses," or turning a blood-soaked abortion into a bloodless "termination of pregnancy."

We agree with Drs. Flegel and Hebert that physicians should "help educate the public to enable engagement in this important societal issue." But nothing could be further from that than dressing up the abandonment of helpless patients in the garb of "appropriate and compassionate care."

Please visit www.nationalrighttolifenews.org and send your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com.

Part One
Part Two