"Euthanasia" was a common word in the early right-to-die debate.
But it was used so many different ways
that it had to be replaced by new terms
for describing and defining end-of-life choices
without struggling with irrelevant baggage from the past.

    In part because it had a long history,
"euthanasia" spawned a whole clutch of derivative terms:
"passive euthanasia", "active euthanasia", "direct euthanasia",
"indirect euthanasia", "non-active euthanasia", "voluntary euthanasia",
"involuntary euthanasia", "non-voluntary euthanasia",
"voluntary active euthanasia", "involuntary active euthanasia",
"non-voluntary active euthanasia", "slow euthanasia", etc.
Anyone using such expressions
had to make subtle distinctions to ward-off common misunderstandings.
It was not worth the effort of trying to create clear meaning
using an expression that was inherently ambiguous
and freighted with unwanted connotations.

    Perhaps "euthanasia" will take its place alongside "communism".
"Euthanasia" was once a useful expression meaning good death.
But it came to be so associated
with such things as lethal injection and Nazi atrocities
that no one could use the word "euthanasia"
without each time denying the connotations.

    Likewise "communism" was originally coined
by Karl Marx to mean the common good.
But history so distorted this common good into totalitarianism
that it lost it original meaning of compassionate caring.
No one promoted love within the family by calling it "communism".
When parents made sacrifices in order to provide for their children,
they did not think that they are being "communist".

    "Euthanasia" became a code-word for opponents of the right-to-die.
For example, consider the "Anti-Euthanasia Task Force". 
Such expressions easily point to something terrible,
even if the horrors are not defined or described.

    Should advocates of the right-to-die
stop using the word "euthanasia"?

---

COULD "GENTLE DEATH" REPLACE "EUTHANASIA"?

    We in the right-to-die movement favor gentle death:

1. Gentle death does no harm to the patient.
Gentle death provides a major benefit to the patient
because it eliminates unbearable suffering.
And gentle death is achieved by methods that eliminate pain.

2. Gentle death is freely chosen by the patient, based on medical facts.
When weighed against all the other alternatives,
death at this time is more reasonable than death at some later time.

3. Gentle death is planned well in advance—when possible.
Planning for death could take several months, perhaps even a year.
Gentle death is not capricious or rushed.

4. Gentle death is admirable and commendable in retrospect.
When family and friends look back on a gentle death,
they say that it was a good death
—as positive as possible under the circumstances.
They have no regrets about how this death was achieved.
They can lament the fact that their dear friend or relative is gone,
but they do not lament the manner of the dying.

    Thru most of human history, death was seldom gentle.
Our ancestors died from cold or being eaten by animals.
They suffered extremely just before they died of disease or violence.
Rough death was more common than gentle death.

    But when most deaths occur in hospitals, under medical care,
most patients can have a well-managed process of dying.
They can even die in their sleep
because they can have sedatives that render them unconscious
if being awake always includes suffering.

    "Gentle death" is the opposite of a violent or pain-filled death.

    And who could oppose a gentle death?
In the past, statements like the following were common:
"We are unalterably opposed to all forms of euthanasia."
Various medical associations made similar statements.
And frequently they did not define the term,
suggesting that everyone already knew what "euthanasia" meant.

    But who would issue a statement like the following?
"This Medical Association strongly opposes all forms of gentle death."
"Any physician who cooperates in a gentle death
will be expelled from the association
and criminal charges will be recommended when appropriate."

    If we replace "euthanasia" with "gentle death",
then those who challenge the 'right-to-die'
will never name their organizations "the anti-gentle-death task force".
They will not create media campaigns
denouncing the horrors of "gentle death".

    The opposition will complain that we re-named an old evil,
but the people in the middle will think twice
before they easily and automatically turn against gentle death.

---

---

    This critique of the use of the word "euthanasia"
is also Chapter 16 of How to Die: Safeguards for Life-Ending Decisions,
entitled Could "Gentle Death" Replace "Euthanasia"?

Even if you still use the word "euthanasia",
you might have some other suggestions for How to Die. 
A Facebook Seminar is now discussing this book,
one chapter or safeguard at a time.

    See the complete description for this first-readers book-club:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/aws-website-jamesleonardpark---freelibrary-3puxk/ED-HTD.html

Join our Facebook Group called:
Safeguards for Life-Ending Decisions:
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/groups/107513822718270/

---

Go to Safeguards for Life-Ending Decisions

---

Go to Portal for the Right-to-Die

---