{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01456953642384106, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.952755905511811, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Holding the line on euthanasia.


 Progress made in the development of law and practice for the termination of treatment has depended in part on the legal prohibition of active euthanasia. Gains achieved due to the prohibition include an overall toleration of relatively informal, nonlegalistic decision processes and a trust in the commitment of physicians to do no harm; an expansive reading by the courts of the right to refuse life-sustaining treatment; greater attention by clinicians to the pain and distress of dying patients; and a safer context for the ambivalence and conflict of termination decisions at the patient's bedside. Any argument for easing the prohibition must acknowledge the consequences, which could be a loss of ground hard won.
