Article info
Response
Ethical end-of-life palliative care: response to Riisfeldt
- Correspondence to Dr Heidi Giebel, Philosophy, St Paul, MN 55105, USA; hmgiebel{at}stthomas.edu
Citation
Ethical end-of-life palliative care: response to Riisfeldt
Publication history
- Received March 11, 2019
- Revised July 2, 2019
- Accepted July 16, 2019
- First published August 8, 2019.
Online issue publication
January 14, 2020
Article Versions
- Previous version (8 August 2019).
- You are viewing the most recent version of this article.
Request permissions
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.
Copyright information
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Other content recommended for you
- Weakening the ethical distinction between euthanasia, palliative opioid use and palliative sedation
- A response to critics: weakening the ethical distinction between euthanasia, palliative opioid use and palliative sedation
- 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
- Can facilitated aid in dying be permitted by ‘double effect’? Some reflections from a recent New Zealand case
- Terminal sedation and the “imminence condition”
- Expanded terminal sedation in end-of-life care
- Strengthening the ethical distinction between euthanasia, palliative opioid use and palliative sedation
- Double effect: a useful rule that alone cannot justify hastening death
- Does the doctrine of double effect apply to the prescription of barbiturates? Syme vs the Medical Board of Australia
- Moral differences in deep continuous palliative sedation and euthanasia