Does anyone know the meaning of the following phrase?

Question

France adopts 'end of life' law
France's parliament has approved a law that will allow terminally ill
patients to opt for death instead of further treatment, but which supporters
say stops short of permitting euthanasia.

What is the underlying meaning of the last phrase "but which supporters
say stops short of permitting euthanasia."

What does "which" refer to?

Thanks

Pieanne · Accepted Answer

"stop short of. Not go so far as to do or say something. For example, He may embroider the truth but he stops short of actually lying. This usage was first recorded in 1818."

I'm not quite clear about the quote either...
I think it means the supporters of the law don't go so far as to allow euthanasia.

CalifJim · Answer

"which" refers to the law in question.

CJ

Guest · Answer

if you yourself choose to die they do not help to sustain life i.e. No treatment shall be given no food no water, life is essentially given to teach either you or someone else a lesson,if we end our life before the lesson is learned will we not have to come back and learn the lesson again?

Abbie1948 · Answer

I agree pieanne.

"France's parliament has approved a law that will allow terminally ill
patients to opt for death instead of further treatment, but which supporters
say stops short of permitting euthanasia. "

Put another way:

Terminally ill people can now refuse treatment, and will be allowed to die. Supporters of euthanasia say that this will not permit euthenasia."

i.e. people will be allowed to die naturally by refusing treatment, but will not be allowed to undergo any process which actively ends their lives.

Just the truth · Answer

CJ:
"which" refers to the law in question.

==

JTT: I think this provides an excellent opportunity for ESLs to see how 'that' and 'which' are used as relative pronouns.

+++++++++++
France's parliament has approved a law that will allow terminally ill
patients to opt for death instead of further treatment, but which supporters
say stops short of permitting euthanasia.
+++++++++++

1. France's parliament has approved a law.

2. [that] It/The law will allow terminally ill patients to opt for death instead of further treatment.

3. [but which] Supporters say it/the law stops short of permitting euthanasia.

In #2, we see the relative pronoun 'that' fills in for "a law" from sentence 1.

"a law", by the time we reach #2, has become specific so it is now "the law". Since it has become specific and it has been described by sentence 2, it is not possible to again use 'that' as a relative pronoun in #3. Why?

After sentence 2, we are all sufficiently clear as to what 'law' is under discussion. When we're clear on the noun in question, subsequent discussion on that noun, when we use relative pronouns, is performed with 'which'.

{In #2, it would have been possible/okay to use the relative pronoun 'which'. This tends to happen in more formal circumstances.}

The same thing happens with who/that for people. Both relative pronouns, and can be used for people but when the person becomes clear, 'that' is excluded from use.

The man that/who said which refers to law was Jim.

The man that/who said 'which refers to law' was Jim. *Jim, that has 10 children, loves to play tennis.* But, as one can well imagine, Jim doesn't seem to be able to find much time for tennis.

*Jim, that said which refers to law, lives in California.*

Jim, who said which refers to law, lives in California.

Julielai · Answer

0 I came across this question on a Chinese forum, so I did a little research on this. 02br
02br
00The Reuters excerpt apparently came from a Chinese newspaper, and here is the Chinese translation of the last line: 02br
00?????????????????,????????? 02br
02br
00If you read the whole Reuters article, you'll find out who the supporters are: 02br
02br
00"The authors of the law -- supported by the conservative government, opposition Socialists and the Roman Catholic Church -- have said the bill does not copy voluntary euthanasia which is legal in Belgium and the Netherlands. They say it is distinct from euthanasia because it does not allow the doctor to actively end the patient's life. " 02br
02br
00Also from the original article: "Critics of the new law said the text would not have allowed Marie Humbert to actively end her son's life." 02br
02br
00"Many pro-life groups and representatives of the Roman Catholic Church said they agreed with the proposed law. " 02br
02br
00As you can see, the supporters of the law are those against euthanasia. ??? are the ones supporting euthanasia. 02br
02br
00So the translation, which literally says "those who object consider the legislation to be no different from authorizing euthanasia, and ask the government to put a stop to this" (???????????????,????????) is a bit off, to put it mildly. No wonder those Chinese ESL students are confused. They thought they misinterpreted the English text. 02br
02br
00This is not the first erroneous translation I've come across, and it definitely won't be the last. 0-

Julielai · Answer

0 You can google for the original Reuters article, by the way. 0-

Does anyone know the meaning of the following phrase?

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions