Where does the Committee define euthanasia in exclusively active or “commissive” terms?
Rather than being explicitly stated, the practical meaning which the Committee assigns “euthanasia” is suffused throughout the report. To understand this definition requires a careful reading of the whole report, which I did for my postgraduate dissertation at the Pontifical Lateran University. The definition is implied in pages 11-12 of the terminology chapter. One place where the definition is explicit is page A-145. In referring to Dutch data about “non-treatment decisions that were taken at least partly for the purpose of hastening the end of the patient s life,” the report states: “Clearly, from the Canadian point of view, … non-treatment decisions are not euthanasia.” In light of the information and argument that you have presented in Parts I and II, the Committee s position that withholding or withdrawing treatment is never homicidal seems surprising. Did the Committee offer support for its views? With all respect to the members of the Committee, the support the report offers
