Article Text
PDFDebate
Response to Kuhse
Abstract
In this short paper, we respond to critics of our original paper, The agony of agonal respiration: is the last gasp necessary?. A common thread in both Hawryluck’s and Kuhse’s responses is the difficulties encountered when using the agent’s intentions to make moral distinctions between using neuromuscular blocking drugs to palliate versus using neuromuscular blocking drugs to kill. Although this difficulty does exist we maintain that the intentions of the physician must matter when providing end-of-life care.
- Palliative care
- end-of-life care
- double effect
- terminal sedation
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Response to Ronald M Perkin and David B Resnik: The agony of trying to match sanctity of life and patient-centred medical care
- The agony of agonal respiration: is the last gasp necessary?
- Euthanasia, efficiency, and the historical distinction between killing a patient and allowing a patient to die
- Terminal sedation and the “imminence condition”
- Neuromuscular blockers—a means of palliation?
- Weakening the ethical distinction between euthanasia, palliative opioid use and palliative sedation
- Internists’ attitudes towards terminal sedation in end of life care
- Euthanasia and other end of life decisions and care provided in final three months of life: nationwide retrospective study in Belgium
- The role of the principle of double effect in ethics education at US medical schools and its potential impact on pain management at the end of life
- Influence of physicians’ life stances on attitudes to end-of-life decisions and actual end-of-life decision-making in six countries