Search

Background: Palliative sedation is the widely-used intervention of administering sedating agents to induce a state of unconsciousness to take away a dying patient's perception of otherwise irrelievable symptoms. However, it remains questionable whether this ethically complex intervention is beneficial for patients and whether the associated lack of communication in the last phase of life has a negative impact on relatives' wellbeing., Methods: An observational questionnaire study was conducted among relatives of a consecutive sample of patients who died a non-sudden death in the Erasmus MC Cancer Institute or in the hospice 'Laurens Cadenza' (both in Rotterdam) between 2010 and 2013., Results: Relatives filled in questionnaires regarding 151 patients who had been sedated and 90 patients who had not been sedated. The median time since all patients had passed away was 21 (IQR 14-32) months. No significant differences were found in relatives´ assessments of the quality of end-of-life care, patients´ quality of life in the last week before death and their quality of dying, between patients who did and did not receive sedation, or in relatives' satisfaction with their own life, their general health and their mental wellbeing after the patient's death., Conclusions: The use of sedation in these patients appears to have no negative effect on bereaved relatives' evaluation of the patient's dying phase, or on their own wellbeing after the patient's death.

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.)

Purpose: The purpose of the study was to explore relatives' descriptions and experiences of continuous sedation in end-of-life care for cancer patients and to identify and explain differences between respondents from the Netherlands, Belgium, and the UK., Methods: In-depth interviews were held between January 2011 and May 2012 with 38 relatives of 32 cancer patients who received continuous sedation until death in hospitals, the community, and hospices/palliative care units., Results: Relatives' descriptions of the practice referred to the outcome, to practical aspects, and to the goals of sedation. While most relatives believed sedation had contributed to a 'good death' for the patient, yet many expressed concerns. These related to anxieties about the patient's wellbeing, their own wellbeing, and questions about whether continuous sedation had shortened the patient's life (mostly UK), or whether an alternative approach would have been better. Such concerns seemed to have been prompted by relatives witnessing unexpected events such as the patient coming to awareness during sedation. In the Netherlands and in Belgium, several relatives reported that the start of the sedation allowed for a planned moment of 'saying goodbye'. In contrast, UK relatives discerned neither an explicit point at which sedation was started nor a specific moment of farewell., Conclusions: Relatives believed that sedation contributed to the patient having a good death. Nevertheless, they also expressed concerns that may have been provoked by unexpected events for which they were unprepared. There seems to exist differences in the process of saying goodbye between the NL/BE and the UK.

Objective: The use of continuous sedation until death for terminally ill cancer patients with unbearable and untreatable psychological and existential suffering remains controversial, and little in-depth insight exists into the circumstances in which physicians resort to it., Methods: Our study was conducted in Belgium, the Netherlands, and the UK in hospitals, PCUs/hospices, and at home. We held interviews with 35 physicians most involved in the care of cancer patients who had psychological and existential suffering and had been continuously sedated until death., Results: In the studied countries, three groups of patients were distinguished regarding the origin of their psychological and existential suffering. The first group had preexisting psychological problems before they became ill, the second developed psychological and existential suffering during their disease trajectory, and the third presented psychological symptoms that were characteristic of their disease. Before they resorted to the use of sedation, physicians reported that they had considered an array of pharmacological and psychological interventions that were ineffective or inappropriate to relieve this suffering. Necessary conditions for using sedation in this context were for most physicians the presence of refractory symptoms, a short life expectancy, and an explicit patient request for sedation., Conclusions: Physicians in our study used continuous sedation until death in the context of psychological and existential suffering after considering several pharmacological and psychological interventions. Further research and debate are needed on how and by whom this suffering at the end of life should be best treated, taking into account patients' individual preferences., (© 2013 The Authors. Psycho-Oncology published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)