Expanded terminal sedation in end-of-life care
Other content recommended for you
- Terminal sedation and the “imminence condition”
- Weakening the ethical distinction between euthanasia, palliative opioid use and palliative sedation
- 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
- Does the doctrine of double effect apply to the prescription of barbiturates? Syme vs the Medical Board of Australia
- The agony of agonal respiration: is the last gasp necessary?
- Strengthening 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
- Internists’ attitudes towards terminal sedation in end of life care
- Ethical end-of-life palliative care: response to Riisfeldt
Jump to comment:
As a retired palliative care physician, I am puzzled by several aspects of this article. First, authors’ choice of terminology: ‘terminal sedation’ and ‘expanded terminal sedation’. It is more than 20 years since the use of the former began to be discouraged because of perceived ambiguity, and replaced by ‘palliative sedation’ (PS) – as reflected in current professional guidelines. And despite dissenting voices, most clinicians would probably consider ‘expanded terminal sedation’ to be ‘slow euthanasia’.Show More
PS was used to describe a deliberate switch from escalation of symptom management to a deliberate reduction in a patient’s level of consciousness in order to ease otherwise intolerable refractory suffering in ‘imminently dying’ patients. The sedation varied from light to deep depending on individual need. Some guidelines refer to ‘intermittent’ as well as ‘continuous’ sedation. Recently, because of the lack of clarity in many reports, there’s been a trend towards limiting discussion to ‘deep continuous sedation until death’ (CDSUD) – the most contentious aspect of sedation near the end of life.
Second, it may be correct that ‘the Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE) continues to shape much of the ethical and legal literature concerning end-of-life care’ (EOLC), but what about the medical literature? Would it surprise the authors if I say that, when a practicing clinician, I never agonized about ‘double effect’? As they noted, DDE was originally formulate...