Misconstrual of EAPC's position paper on euthanasia

Palliative Care and Physician Assisted Death

In the recent decade quite a few countries and regions legalised physician assisted death. While palliative care is already or becoming the standard end of life care in many countries, the increased availability of physician assisted death coupled with the secularisation of hospice in more settings require – where this has not happened yet – a clear response of palliative care specialists to patients’ requests for physician assisted death. The paper analyses the World Health Organisation’s current description of palliative care with a special focus on its prohibition of hastening death. Some palliative care professionals do not agree with the ban on hastening death, and these professionals’ non-conventional interpretation of palliative care actually seems to meet the wishes of some patients.

Euthanasia embedded in palliative care. Responses to essentialistic criticisms of the Belgian model of integral end-of-life care

The Belgian model of 'integral' end-of-life care consists of universal access to palliative care (PC) and legally regulated euthanasia. As a first worldwide, the Flemish PC organisation has embedded euthanasia in its practice. However, some critics have declared the Belgian-model concepts of 'integral PC' and 'palliative futility' to fundamentally contradict the essence of PC. This article analyses the various essentialistic arguments for the incompatibility of euthanasia and PC. The empirical evidence from the euthanasia-permissive Benelux countries shows that since legalisation, carefulness (of decision making) at the end of life has improved and there have been no significant adverse 'slippery slope' effects. It is problematic that some critics disregard the empirical evidence as epistemologically irrelevant in a normative ethical debate. Next, rejecting euthanasia because its prevention was a founding principle of PC ignores historical developments. Further, critics' ethical positions depart from the PC tenet of patient centeredness by prioritising caregivers' values over patients' values. Also, many critics' canonical adherence to the WHO definition of PC, which has intention as the ethical criterion is objectionable. A rejection of the Belgian model on doctrinal grounds also has nefarious practical consequences such as the marginalisation of PC in euthanasia-permissive countries, the continuation of clandestine practices and problematic palliative sedation until death. In conclusion, major flaws of essentialistic arguments against the Belgian model include the disregard of empirical evidence, appeals to canonical and questionable definitions, prioritisation of caregiver perspectives over those of patients and rejection of a plurality of respectable views on decision making at the end of life.