Re: Legalization of euthanasia

Issue: BCMJ, vol. 52 , No. 4 , May 2010 , Letters

I am afraid that the author of this article on medical ethics [BCMJ 2010;52(2):92-94] seems a little confused. It seems that she argues against legalization of euthanasia by looking at the ethical implications within the scope of “competence, autonomy, and beneficence.” 

In her article she seems to “prove” that (1) competence is irrelevant because it cannot be proven, (2) autonomy in euthanasia cannot exist because the patient is not intelligent enough to come to the right conclusion without consulting a physician, and (3) despite the aim to reduce suffering via eu­thanasia, it is not a beneficent act but always a malicious one because those who aid the patient always do so to benefit only themselves.

Ms Ko may have learned a lesson from television advertisers who know that if you shout a message loud enough and long enough, people will believe it no matter how utterly illogical it may be. 

Considering that her argument rests on the idea that physicians cannot be trusted to evaluate and gravely judge a patient’s decision to end his or her life in what is the ultimate fiduciary act; it is ironic that she writes, “However, whether such profound trust can be placed in any group of professionals is another question.” No, that is actually “the” question of her article. 

Finally, one gets tired of the sloppy slippery slope argument used near the end of the article. This is always trotted out by the opponents of change, no matter how beneficial that change might be.

While legal decisions are not al­ways logical I think it behooves us to conform to careful and rational arguments when looking at issues of an ethical nature.
—Ari Giligson, MD
Delta BC

. Re: Legalization of euthanasia. BCMJ, Vol. 52, No. 4, May, 2010, Page(s) - Letters.

Above is the information needed to cite this article in your paper or presentation. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommends the following citation style, which is the now nearly universally accepted citation style for scientific papers:
Halpern SD, Ubel PA, Caplan AL, Marion DW, Palmer AM, Schiding JK, et al. Solid-organ transplantation in HIV-infected patients. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:284-7.

About the ICMJE and citation styles

The ICMJE is small group of editors of general medical journals who first met informally in Vancouver, British Columbia, in 1978 to establish guidelines for the format of manuscripts submitted to their journals. The group became known as the Vancouver Group. Its requirements for manuscripts, including formats for bibliographic references developed by the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM), were first published in 1979. The Vancouver Group expanded and evolved into the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), which meets annually. The ICMJE created the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals to help authors and editors create and distribute accurate, clear, easily accessible reports of biomedical studies.

An alternate version of ICMJE style is to additionally list the month an issue number, but since most journals use continuous pagination, the shorter form provides sufficient information to locate the reference. The NLM now lists all authors.

BCMJ standard citation style is a slight modification of the ICMJE/NLM style, as follows:

  • Only the first three authors are listed, followed by "et al."
  • There is no period after the journal name.
  • Page numbers are not abbreviated.

For more information on the ICMJE Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals, visit

BCMJ Guidelines for Authors

Leave a Reply