Search

Background: Continuous deep sedation at the end of life is a practice that has been the topic of considerable ethical debate, for example surrounding its perceived similarity or dissimilarity with physician-assisted dying. The practice is generally considered to be legal as a form of symptom control, although this is mostly only assumed. France has passed an amendment to the Public Health Act that would grant certain terminally ill patients an explicit right to continuous deep sedation until they pass away. Such a framework would be unique in the world., Discussion: In this paper we will highlight and reflect on four relevant aspects and shortcomings of the proposed bill. First, that the bill suggests that continuous deeps sedation should be considered as a sui generis practice. Second, that it requires that sedation should always be accompanied by the withholding of all artificial nutrition and hydration. In the most recently amended version of the legal proposal it is stated that life sustaining treatments are withheld unless the patient objects. Third, that the French bill would not require that the suffering for which continuous deep sedation is initiated is unbearable. Fourth, the question as to whether the proposal should be considered as a way to avoid having to decriminalise euthanasia and/or PAS or, on the contrary, as a veiled way to decriminalise these practices. The French proposal to amend the Public Health Act to include a right to continuous deep sedation for some patients is a unique opportunity to clarify the legality of continuous deep sedation as an end-of-life practice. Moreover, it would recognize that the practice of continuous deep sedation raises ethical and legal issues that are different from those raised by symptom control on the one hand and assisted dying on the other hand. Nevertheless, there are still various issues of significant ethical concern in the French legislative proposal.

Rationale, Aims and Objectives: Continuous sedation at the end of life is an end-of-life practice that has gained considerable attention in the international literature. Nevertheless, significant confusion persists, even on how to label or define the practice. Several different terms and definitions exist, and these are often non-neutral and indicative of one's normative position on sedation at the end of life. This is problematic for two reasons. First, the use of such value-laden terms or definitions of continuous sedation may make it difficult, if not impossible, to agree on the facts surrounding continuous sedation. Second, including normative criteria in a definition can lead one to make disguised circular or tautological statements., Methods: This paper identifies commonly used terms and definitions and demonstrates how particular elements present in these are value-laden and can influence the ethical evaluation of continuous sedation at the end of life., Results: Two commonly used terms, 'palliative sedation' and 'terminal sedation', have been strongly criticized. We propose to use another, more descriptive term, namely 'continuous sedation at the end of life'. As regards the different definitions of sedation, some are general, but most contain very specific elements, thereby clearly limiting the number of cases that are covered by the definition. Some definitions of sedation include the intention one should (not) have, the possible indications for the practice, and the type of patients the practice should be reserved for., Conclusion: Including value-laden elements in the very definition of a clinical practice runs the risk of pre-empting a proper normative debate about the practice. We explain why this is the case and why it is problematic, and we propose an alternative, descriptive, definition that seeks to avoid these problems., (© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

The application of ethically controversial medical procedures may differ from one place to another. Drawing on a keyword and text-mining analysis of 156 interviews with doctors and nurses involved in end-of-life care ('care providers'), differences between countries in care providers' ethical rationales for the use of sedation are reported. In the United Kingdom, an emphasis on titrating doses proportionately against symptoms is more likely, maintaining consciousness where possible. The potential harms of sedation are perceived to be the potential hastening of social as well as biological death. In Belgium and the Netherlands, although there is concern to distinguish the practice from euthanasia, rapid inducement of deep unconsciousness is more acceptable to care providers. This is often perceived to be a proportionate response to unbearable suffering in a context where there is also greater pressure to hasten dying from relatives and others. This means that sedation is more likely to be organised like euthanasia, as the end 'moment' is reached, and family farewells are organised before the patient is made unconscious for ever. Medical and nursing practices are partly responses to factors outside the place of care, such as legislation and public sentiment. Dutch guidelines for sedation largely tally with the practices prevalent in the Netherlands and Belgium, in contrast with those produced by the more international European Association for Palliative Care whose authors describe an ethical framework closer to that reportedly used by UK care providers., (© The Author(s) 2014.)

Background: Extensive debate surrounds the practice of continuous sedation until death to control refractory symptoms in terminal cancer care. We examined reported practice of United Kingdom, Belgian and Dutch physicians and nurses., Methods: Qualitative case studies using interviews., Setting: Hospitals, the domestic home and hospices or palliative care units., Participants: In all, 57 Physicians and 73 nurses involved in the care of 84 cancer patients., Results: UK respondents reported a continuum of practice from the provision of low doses of sedatives to control terminal restlessness to rarely encountered deep sedation. In contrast, Belgian respondents predominantly described the use of deep sedation, emphasizing the importance of responding to the patient's request. Dutch respondents emphasized making an official medical decision informed by the patient's wish and establishing that a refractory symptom was present. Respondents employed rationales that showed different stances towards four key issues: the preservation of consciousness, concerns about the potential hastening of death, whether they perceived continuous sedation until death as an 'alternative' to euthanasia and whether they sought to follow guidelines or frameworks for practice., Conclusion: This qualitative analysis suggests that there is systematic variation in end-of-life care sedation practice and its conceptualization in the United Kingdom, Belgium and the Netherlands., (© The Author(s) 2014.)

Continuous sedation at the end of life is a practice that has attracted a great deal of attention. An increasing number of guidelines on the proposed correct performance of the practice have been drafted. All of the guidelines stress the importance of using sedation in proportion to the severity of the patient's symptoms, thus to reduce the patient's consciousness no more than is absolutely necessary. As different patients can have different experiences of suffering, the amount of suffering should, ideally, be assessed subjectively; that is, via communication with the patient. Continuously sedated patients are often unable to communicate, however, making subjective methods of pain assessment unusable. For these patients, the degree of consciousness is the sole available measure. It therefore seems important to adequately measure how deeply the patient is sedated, thereby allowing sedation to be increased when it is too light and decreased when it is too heavy. This is in accordance with the idea that reducing consciousness is not an ethically neutral act. Although consciousness measuring techniques are a hot topic in anesthesiology, almost no research exists on the use of such techniques in the context of continuous sedation at the end of life. This article aims to review existing techniques to measure consciousness and to evaluate their applicability, efficiency, and invasiveness for patients who are continuously sedated until death. Techniques commonly used to assess the depth of sedation in continuously sedated patients are basic clinical assessment and sedation scales, as they are often considered reliable and non-invasive. These techniques might not be very reliable, however, since it is known that some patients are nonresponsive and yet aware. Moreover, sedation scales require stimulation of the patient (for example prodding, shaking, or providing painful stimuli), and can thus be considered invasive of one's bodily integrity or dignity. Other techniques, such as EEG (electroencephalography) derivatives, may score better on reliability and invasiveness. Yet these have so far never been compared to sedation scale scores for patients receiving continuous sedation at the end of life. Therefore, we conclude that, for both clinical and ethical reasons, research into the efficiency and applicability of other techniques, such as derivatives of EEG, are urgently needed., (Copyright 2014 The Journal of Clinical Ethics. All rights reserved.)

Continuous sedation at the end of life (CS) is the practice whereby a physician uses sedatives to reduce or take away a patient's consciousness until death. Although the incidence of CS is rising, as of yet little research has been conducted on how the administration of CS is experienced by medical practitioners. Existing research shows that many differences exist between medical practitioners regarding how and how often they perform CS. We conducted a focus group study to find out which factors may facilitate or constrain the use of continuous sedation by physicians and nurses. The participants often had clear ideas on what could affect the likelihood that sedation would be used. The physicians and nurses in the focus groups testified that the use of continuous sedation was facilitated in cases where a patient has a very limited life expectancy, suffers intensely, makes an explicit request and has family members who can cope with the stress that accompanies sedation. However, this 'paradigm case' was considered to occur only rarely. Furthermore, deviations from the paradigm case were said to be sometimes due to physicians initiating the discussion on CS too late or not initiating it at all for fear of inducing the patient. Deviations from the paradigm case may also occur when sedation proves to be too difficult for family members who are said to sometimes pressure the medical practitioners to increase dosages and speed up the sedation.

Surveys in different countries (e.g. the UK, Belgium and The Netherlands) show a marked recent increase in the incidence of continuous deep sedation at the end of life (CDS). Several hypotheses can be formulated to explain the increasing performance of this practice. In this paper we focus on what we call the 'natural death' hypothesis, i.e. the hypothesis that acceptance of CDS has spread rapidly because death after CDS can be perceived as a 'natural' death by medical practitioners, patients' relatives and patients. We attempt to show that the label 'natural' cannot be unproblematically applied to the nature of this end-of-life practice. We argue that the labeling of death following CDS as 'natural' death is related to a complex set of mechanisms which facilitate the use of this practice. However, our criticism does not preclude the view that CDS may be clinically and ethically justified in many cases., (© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.)

The relatively new practice of continuous sedation at the end of life (CS) is increasingly being debated in the clinical and ethical literature. This practice received much attention when a U.S. Supreme Court ruling noted that the availability of CS made legalization of physician-assisted suicide (PAS) unnecessary, as CS could alleviate even the most severe suffering. This view has been widely adopted. In this article, we perform an in-depth analysis of four versions of this "argument of preferable alternative." Our goal is to determine the extent to which CS can be considered to be an alternative to PAS and to identify the grounds, if any, on which CS may be ethically preferable to PAS.