Article info
PDFResponse
Strengthening the ethical distinction between euthanasia, palliative opioid use and palliative sedation
- Correspondence to Mr Xavier Symons, Institute for Ethics and Society, University of Notre Dame Australia, Sydney, New South Wales 2007, Australia; xavier.symons{at}nd.edu.au
Citation
Strengthening the ethical distinction between euthanasia, palliative opioid use and palliative sedation
Publication history
- Received April 16, 2019
- Accepted May 7, 2019
- First published June 20, 2019.
Online issue publication
January 14, 2020
Article Versions
- Previous version (20 June 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
- 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