Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Implications of extended terminal sedation
  1. Paul Clay Sorum1,
  2. David S Pratt2
  1. 1 Departments of Medicine and Pediatrics, Albany Medical College, Cohoes, New York, USA
  2. 2 Health Care Consultant, Albany, NewYork, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Paul Clay Sorum, Medicine, Albany Medical College, Cohoes, New York 12047, USA; sorump{at}

Statistics from

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.

Gilbertson, Savulescu, Oakley and Wilkinson propose extending the availability of terminal sedation (TS) to patients with intractable pain and/or suffering who are expected to live more than 2 weeks (hence the designation of extended TS (ETS)) and to patients whose values are known but who do not have decision-making capacity.1 Their plan is worthy of serious consideration: it is, after all, based on the fundamental and well-recognised medical ethical values of patient autonomy and beneficence. But, even when restricted to jurisdictions that allow assisted dying, the ETS proposal raises three important issues.

When the authors speak of ‘assisted dying’ and of ‘Voluntary Assisted Dying (VAS)’, they refer specifically to the laws in Australia and similar ones in New Zealand, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Spain and Canada that permit clinicians either to provide patients with lethal medications for self-administration (formerly called physician-assisted suicide) or to administer lethal medications themselves (voluntary euthanasia).

First, the authors distinguish—as do many patients and the public—between sedation to unconsciousness and death. Indeed, as the authors point out, the difference seems obvious: unconsciousness can be reversed, death cannot. Yet in the case of TS, this may be …

View Full Text


  • Contributors PCS and DSP discussed the issues and collaborated equally in writing the commentary

  • 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 Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles

  • Feature article
    Laura Gilbertson Julian Savulescu Justin Oakley Dominic Wilkinson

Other content recommended for you