SOME ABUSE: The problem of euthanasia is one of the greatest subjects of ethical controversy of our time, controversy enhanced by the ambiguity of the word. Up until the Seventeenth century, the word evoked the easing of terminal suffering by a physician. At the end of the Nineteenth century the abuse is total--the word means the deliberate ending of a patient's life to spare the suffering. The various qualifications added later (active or passive euthanasia, direct or indirect, voluntary or non-voluntary, involuntary...) have certainly not helped to clarify the situation. AMBIGUITY AND PROBLEMS OF INTERPRETATION: Even worse, the word itself is not unambiguous, biased etymologically by the prefix "eu" that provides it with a positive connotation. A survey among the general public has shown that the notion of euthanasia is interpreted in different ways by the population, which would therefore discredit a public referendum preceding its legalisation, which is undesiderable because of the risks of abuses. It is unlikely that even the best efforts for clarification would ever be able to eliminate the intrinsic ambiguity that now contaminates the word. TO IMPROVE THE SITUATION: Since it appears difficult to banish the word euthanasia from the medical vocabulary, it should at least be accompanied by the objective characterisation of the behaviour corresponding to each situation. Hence in difficult situations, the place of life-saving measures, of palliative care and of analgesic sedation could be reasonably decided on by a group, made up on a case by case basis, by persons having known, cared for and accompanied the patient.