Abstract

This paper attempts to analyse and criticize the arguments and motives of those who reject any discussion of active euthanasia. A distinction is drawn between freedom of discussion in academic and in public con texts. Academic discussion demands unrestricted freedom, whereas in public debates the feelings of the groups concerned should be considered. The author argues that these restrictions are not serious enough to justify suppressing the debate. Problems of euthanasia are too vital to be left to the experts without public control.