Background Because opioids can suppress respiratory drive, the principle of double effect (PDE) has been used to justify their use for terminally ill patients. Recent studies, however, suggest that the risk of respiratory depression in typical end-of-life (EOL) situations may be overstated and that heightened concern for this rare occurrence can lead to inadequate treatment of pain. The purpose of this study is to examine the role of the PDE in medical school ethics education, with specific reference to its potential impact on pain management at EOL.
Method After obtaining institutional review board approval, an electronic survey was sent to ethics educators at every allopathic medical school in the USA.
Results One-third of ethics educators felt that opioids were ‘likely’ to cause significant respiratory depression that could hasten death. Educators' opinions of opioid effects did not influence their view of the relevance of the PDE, with approximately 70% deeming it relevant to EOL care. Only 15% of ethics educators believed that associating the PDE with opioid use might discourage clinicians from optimally treating pain, out of concern for respiratory depression.
Conclusion This study demonstrates that a significant minority of ethics educators believe, contrary to current evidence, that opioids are ‘likely’ to cause significant respiratory depression that could hasten death in terminally ill patients. Yet, many of those who do not feel this is likely still rely on the PDE to justify this possibility, potentially (and unknowingly) contributing to clinical misperceptions and underutilisation of opioids at EOL.
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.
Competing interests None.
Ethics approval Ethics approval was provided by University of Vermont Institutional Review Board.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Weakening the ethical distinction between euthanasia, palliative opioid use and palliative sedation
- Ethical end-of-life palliative care: response to Riisfeldt
- A response to critics: weakening the ethical distinction between euthanasia, palliative opioid use and palliative sedation
- Can facilitated aid in dying be permitted by ‘double effect’? Some reflections from a recent New Zealand case
- Double effect: a useful rule that alone cannot justify hastening death
- Strengthening the ethical distinction between euthanasia, palliative opioid use and palliative sedation
- Expanded terminal sedation in end-of-life care
- Does the doctrine of double effect apply to the prescription of barbiturates? Syme vs the Medical Board of Australia
- Terminal sedation and the “imminence condition”
- Further clarity on cooperation and morality