Article Text
Abstract
My essay ‘Weakening the ethical distinction between euthanasia, palliative opioid use and palliative sedation’ has recently generated some critique which I will attempt to address in this response. Regarding the empirical question of whether palliative opioid and sedative use shorten survival time, Schofield et al raise the three concerns that my literature review contains a cherry-picking bias through focusing solely on the palliative care population, that continuous deep palliative sedation falls beyond the scope of routine palliative care, and that my research may contribute to opiophobia and be harmful to palliative care provision globally. Materstvedt argues that euthanasia ‘ends’ rather than ‘relieves’ suffering and is not a treatment, and that the arguments in my essay are therefore predicated on a ‘category mistake’ and are a non-starter. Symons and Giebel both raise the concern that my Kantian and Millian interpretation of the Doctrine of Double Effect is anachronistic, and that when interpreted from the contemporaneous perspective of Aquinas it is a sound ethical principle. Giebel also argues that palliative opioid and sedative use do meet the Doctrine of Double Effect’s four criteria on this Thomistic account, and that it does not contradict the Doctrine of the Sanctity of Human Life. In this response I will explore and defend against most of these claims, in doing so clarifying my original argument that the empirical and ethical differences between palliative opioid/sedative use and euthanasia may not be as significant as often believed, thereby advancing the case for euthanasia.
- Euthanasia
- Palliative Care
- End-of-life
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Contributors TR researched, wrote and edited this response individually.
Funding The author has 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.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
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:
Linked Articles
- Response
- Response
- Response
- 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
- Strengthening the ethical distinction between euthanasia, palliative opioid use and palliative sedation
- Palliative opioid use, palliative sedation and euthanasia: reaffirming the distinction
- 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
- Ethical end - of - life palliative care: response to Riisfeldt
- Double effect: a useful rule that alone can not justify hastening death
- Erroneous assumptions about deep palliative sedation and euthanasia
- Preventing arrests in the intensive care unit
- Euthanasia embedded in palliative care. Responses to essentialistic criticisms of the Belgian model of integral end - of - life care