Abstract
This article examines the issue of specifying the sematic ranges of the concepts of discontinuing futile therapy and euthanasia and determining their relationship, which translates into resolving the question of the legal (and moral) assessment of the behaviour in question and whether it is or can be identical in both cases. It is frequently said that futile therapy is prolonged dying and euthanasia is the shortening of life. The possibility of discontinuing a futile therapy, or even an order to do so, means that assessment of the legal nature of ceasing futile therapy takes on particular importance – an indication of the normative basis for a physician’s impunity, the prerequisites of that impunity and its ratio legis, and a comparison of the findings with the prerequisites and ratio legis of the crime of euthanasia. It seems that the arguments for the possibility of discontinuing futile therapy are arguments for the admissibility of (active and passive) euthanasia. This means that the postulate of the statutory regulation of the prerequisites for discontinuing futile therapy must be linked to the postulate of making these provisions consistent with criminal law regulations, inter alia, in the area of euthanasia.