Reply to the comment by Dr. Solsona et al.

Excerpt

As Humpty Dumpty said in Alice in Wonderland [1], “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean neither more nor less.” The bioethics literature has consistently defined euthanasia as actions taken with the intent of hastening the death of a patient, and has distinguished between voluntary euthanasia (when a competent patient voluntarily consents), nonvoluntary euthanasia (when an incompetent patient can neither consent nor refuse, as in newborns), and involuntary euthanasia (when a competent patient refuses or opposes receiving euthanasia) [2]. Solsona and colleagues are correct that the Dutch have typically used the term euthanasia to refer only to voluntary euthanasia, but this usage has been an anomaly in the literature. Indeed, even the Dutch seem to be shifting toward the more widely accepted terminology. For example, the highly publicized Groningen Protocol is self-described by Dutch authors as a “protocol for euthanasia in newborns,” clearly reflecting the more commonly used definition [3]. …