The recent acquittal of the general practitioner, Dr Dave Moor, for murder, has again thrown the spotlight onto the vexed issue of the use of pain-relieving drugs in cases of terminal illness, the incidental effect of which may be to shorten life -- the so-called double effect.

It now seems that doctors will not be in jeopardy for prescribing the drugs provided their intention is to relieve pain, rather than to end life.

Some find the distinction artificial, and call for the law to be clarified, while others prefer the status quo.In the green paper 'Who Decides?' in 1997, the Lord Chancellor said the government did 'not seek views on euthanasia, which is illegal now and would remain so'.

His department received 4,000 submissions in response to the green paper, and is still considering its response, which may be in the form of a white paper.

Last week a British Medical Association (BMA) spokeswoman said she did not think there was ambiguity in the current position and said a change in the law was not necessary, since doctors were capable of distinguishing between giving pain-relieving drugs and ending life.

The Department of Health said there were no plans to change the law.

Health secretary Frank Dobson has said he could not, personally, contemplate legalising euthanasia -- primarily because of the risk of abuse by relatives wanting to inherit -- and Ann Widdecombe has predicted that if it was legalised, ultimately no elderly person would be safe.There was a lot of public support for Dr Moor, but a CPS spokeswoman said that public support would not be a factor in any future decision to prosecute.

The head of its York casework directorate stated: 'Advice in the Moor case was obtained from senior Treasury counsel .

.

.

and it was decided there was sufficient evidence to go before a court.

Whether it was in the public interest to prosecute was thoroughly considered'.Ian Barker, of London law firm Hempsons, acted for Dr Moor, instructed by the Medical Defence Union.

His firm specialises in medical-related cases, including 'white-coat' crime.

He said the case was brought on the basis of toxicology evidence that proved to be unsound.

He did not think it was a legal watershed, observing that it was based on the law as it is, and they had not sought to argue that the law was wrong.

Mr Barker said the jury took a careful interest, and the fact that it deliberated for more than an hour indicated it was not a sympathy verdict.

He did not think there should be a change in the law.Living wills -- advance directives -- impinge on the euthanasia debate, albeit as an advance refusal of treatment, rather than a positive direction to end life, which would be illegal.

Valid advance refusals are already legally effective at common law.Denzil Lush, solicitor, Master of the Court of Protection and author of a book, Elderly Clients -- a precedent manual, said he was in favour of living wills, but unhappy about their emphasis on end-of-life medical decisions.

He would prefer a more personal document expressing a wider range of preferences.

A spokeswoman for the BMA said such documents were useful, although there could be problems of construction, particularly regarding the maker's intention.

That there is public demand for living wills is demonstrated by fact that the Terrence Higgins trust has issued 30,000 since 1992, and not only to people who are HIV positive.Solicitors are likely to be the first point of contact for somebody wanting to make such a will.

Peter Raymond, Chairman of the Law Society's probate section, says 'living wills are becomin g more popular all the time.

People don't wish to be kept alive for the sake of it, and want quality rather than mere quantity of life'.

Mr Raymond has had clients who have asked him to draft such documents.

He does not think this country is ready to go towards the position in jurisdictions such as Holland -- where euthanasia is illegal but doctors are not prosecuted where there is an explicit request from a patient in intolerable pain, without any prospect of improvement -- but he is concerned that doctors are sometimes put in a difficult situation.

He maintains there should be legislation to protect the parties, but says it must be preceded by a careful and detailed discussion of the implications.Penny Letts, secretary to the Law Society's mental health and disability committee, says there is confusion in the public mind between euthanasia and living wills.

The Law Commission takes the view that legislation to clarify, and maintain, the effect of the present law is desirable.

The green paper, based on the Law Commission's report on mental incapacity, was subject to further consultation.

In its response to the green paper, the Law Society maintains that there should be legislation, the prime objective of which should be to provide a statutory definition of a living will, establish procedures for written documents to determine its scope and basis, and to set out any specific parameters or restrictions.

Meanwhile, the Law Society says solicitors should be able to prepare living wills, discussing the legal position with competent clients, and making provision for regular review, amendment, revocation, and readily retrievable storage.Ms Letts says the Law Society's view is that euthanasia should remain unlawful.

It would not campaign to have it legalised, and issues concerning the use of drugs to relieve pain and suffering were a matter for clinical judgment.

But it was important to take account of the patient's wishes where these were known.

Observing that Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] 1 All ER 821 -- in which a victim of the Hillsborough disaster was left in a persistent vegetative state, and a declaration was sought from the court that the withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration would not be unlawful, which the court granted -- acknowledged changes to public attitudes, she explains that the law did not provide a proper remedy and there was a need for a comprehensive change so that decisions could be made under a proper legal framework.

She said: 'Any decision to stop food and drink has to be taken by the court so it can consider each case on its facts'.

This was different to the withdrawal of treatment, such as after a road traffic accident, she says.