The main premise of the Royal Dutch Medical Association's (RDMA) guideline on palliative sedation is that palliative sedation, contrary to euthanasia, is normal medical practice. Although we do not deny the ethical distinctions between euthanasia and palliative sedation, we will critically analyse the guideline's argumentation strategy with which euthanasia is demarcated from palliative sedation.
First, we will analyse the guideline's main premise, which entails that palliative sedation is normal medical treatment. After this, we will critically discuss three crucial propositions of the guideline that are used to support this premise: (1) the patient's life expectancy should not exceed 2 weeks; (2) the aim of the physician should be to relieve suffering and (3) expert consultation is optional. We will conclude that, if inherent problematic aspects of palliative sedation are taken seriously, palliative sedation is less normal than it is now depicted in the guideline.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Approaches to suffering at the end of life: the use of sedation in the USA and Netherlands
- Continuous deep sedation for patients nearing death in the Netherlands: descriptive study
- Continuous palliative sedation until death: practice after introduction of the Dutch national guideline
- Estimating the potential life-shortening effect of continuous sedation until death: a comparison between two approaches
- Terminal sedation: source of a restless ethical debate
- International variations in clinical practice guidelines for palliative sedation: a systematic review
- Terminal sedation and the “imminence condition”
- Euthanasia and palliative sedation in Belgium
- Physicians’ labelling of end-of-life practices: a hypothetical case study
- A response to critics: weakening the ethical distinction between euthanasia, palliative opioid use and palliative sedation