When moral authors use the terms “passive euthanasia”, is their meaning generally equivalent to “omissive euthanasia”?
There are two basic meanings in the literature: any omission that results in death, and any omission that causes death. Mine is the latter. Admittedly, it makes for confusion among readers. If I may defend the tradition I represent, it makes for more ethical precision. To say that any omission that results in death is euthanasia completely glosses over the distinction between those omissions that cause death and those that do not. What support is there for the concept that euthanasia – in the sense of mercy-killing – can occur by omission of medical treatment? The concept of killing by omission appeals to common sense, as in the example above of the parent starving a child. This concept is very old in our society and was part of our common law tradition. It entered Canada s Criminal Code in its original 1892 formulation. The Catholic Church, reflecting a long tradition, is very explicit, even today, that euthanasia is “an act or omission” that causes death (Catechism of the Catholic Ch
