Article Text
Response
Strengthening the ethical distinction between euthanasia, palliative opioid use and palliative sedation
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Linked Articles
- Response
- Extended essay
- Response
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
- A response to critics: weakening the ethical distinction between euthanasia, palliative opioid use and palliative sedation
- Expanded terminal sedation in end-of-life care
- 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
- Ethical end-of-life palliative care: response to Riisfeldt
- Terminal sedation and the “imminence condition”
- Does the doctrine of double effect apply to the prescription of barbiturates? Syme vs the Medical Board of Australia
- Double effect: a useful rule that alone cannot justify hastening death
- The agony of agonal respiration: is the last gasp necessary?
- Internists’ attitudes towards terminal sedation in end of life care