Article Text
Abstract
This article is a response to Thomas David Riisfeldt’s paper entitled ‘Weakening the ethical distinction between euthanasia, palliative opioid use and palliative sedation’. It is shown that as far as euthanasia and palliative sedation are concerned, Riisfeldt has not established that a common ground, or a similarity, between the two is the relief of suffering. Quite the contrary, this is not characteristic of euthanasia, neither by definition nor from a clinical point of view. Hence, the argument hinges on a conceptually and empirically erroneous premise and is accordingly a non-starter.
- care of the dying patient
- end of life care
- ethics
- euthanasia
- palliative care
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Contributors LJM is the sole contributor.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Linked Articles
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Moral differences in deep continuous palliative sedation and euthanasia
- Medical murder in Belgium and the Netherlands
- Approaches to suffering at the end of life: the use of sedation in the USA and Netherlands
- Palliative sedation: not just normal medical practice. Ethical reflections on the Royal Dutch Medical Association's guideline on palliative sedation
- Terminal sedation and the “imminence condition”
- A response to critics: weakening the ethical distinction between euthanasia, palliative opioid use and palliative sedation
- Does the doctrine of double effect apply to the prescription of barbiturates? Syme vs the Medical Board of Australia
- International variations in clinical practice guidelines for palliative sedation: a systematic review
- Ought the level of sedation to be reduced during deep palliative sedation? A clinical and ethical analysis
- Weakening the ethical distinction between euthanasia, palliative opioid use and palliative sedation