Der Leidensbegriff im medizinischen Kontext: Ein Problemaufriss am Beispiel der tiefen palliativen Sedierung am Lebensende

Death without distress? The taboo of suffering in palliative care

Palliative care (PC) names as one of its central aims to prevent and relieve suffering. Following the concept of "total pain", which was first introduced by Cicely Saunders, PC not only focuses on the physical dimension of pain but also addresses the patient's psychological, social, and spiritual suffering. However, the goal to relieve suffering can paradoxically lead to a taboo of suffering and imply adverse consequences. Two scenarios are presented: First, PC providers sometimes might fail their own ambitions. If all other means prove ineffective terminal sedation can still be applied as a last resort, though. However, it may be asked whether sedating a dying patient comes close to eliminating suffering by eliminating the sufferer and hereby resembles physician-assisted suicide (PAS), or euthanasia. As an alternative, PC providers could continue treatment, even if it so far prove unsuccessful. In that case, either futility results or the patient might even suffer from the perpetuated, albeit fruitless interventions. Second, some patients possibly prefer to endure suffering instead of being relieved from it. Hence, they want to forgo the various bio-psycho-socio-spiritual interventions. PC providers' efforts then lead to paradoxical consequences: Feeling harassed by PC, patients could suffer even more and not less. In both scenarios, suffering is placed under a taboo and is thereby conceptualised as not being tolerable in general. However, to consider suffering essentially unbearable might promote assisted dying not only on an individual but also on a societal level insofar as unbearable suffering is considered a criterion for euthanasia or PAS.

Die NIPT-Entscheidung des G-BA. Eine ethische Analyse

Aus einer ethischen Perspektive analysieren wir die vom Gemeinsamen Bundesausschuss (G-BA) im September 2019 für Deutschland vorgelegte Änderung der Mutterschaftsrichtlinien, welche die Finanzierung der nicht-invasiven Pränataldiagnostik (NIPT) durch die gesetzlichen Krankenversicherungen unter bestimmten Bedingungen vorsieht. Die Regelung enthält vier wesentliche Elemente: eine Zielbestimmung (Vermeidung invasiver Testmaßnahmen), ein Zugangskriterium (der Test muss für die Schwangere „geboten“ sein, um ihr eine Auseinandersetzung mit ihrer individuellen Situation zu ermöglichen), Aussagen zum Entscheidungsprozess (nach ärztlicher Beratung im Einzelfall) und eine in ihren Begründungen enthaltene normative Kontextualisierung (Schwangerschaftsabbruch nach §218 a StGB).

Es zeigen sich Spannungen, die um zwei Achsen oszillieren: (1) Das befürchtete Leiden aufgrund der Geburt eines Kindes mit Trisomie oder dem Nichtwissen darüber kann letztlich nur subjektiv, aus der Perspektive der Schwangeren beurteilt werden. (2) Die Bedeutung der Einzelfallentscheidung bleibt unklar, weil für die Beurteilung von Einzelfällen auch allgemeine Gesichtspunkte maßgeblich sein müssen. Gerade in seiner Paradoxie und Flexibilität könnte, wie wir argumentieren, das Modell des G‑BA aber eine gesellschaftspolitisch haltbare und ethisch letztlich vertretbare pragmatische Lösung darstellen.

Ist unerfüllter Kinderwunsch ein Leiden? – Der Leidensbegriff im Kontext der Kinderwunschtherapie

Der Begriff Leiden ist in der Medizin und in der Bioethik bisher kaum reflektiert und dahingehend in normativer Hinsicht wenig bestimmt. Dennoch bildet das Leiden an einer Unfruchtbarkeit den Ausgangspunkt für die medizintechnischen Interventionen der assistierten reproduktionsmedizinischen Behandlung. Dabei wird implizit angenommen, dass der unerfüllte Kinderwunsch ein Leiden ist. Ob der unerfüllte Kinderwunsch allerdings ein Leiden darstellt, ist bisher nicht eindeutig geklärt worden.

Ziel dieses Beitrages ist es, die Annahme, dass es sich beim unerfüllten Kinderwunsch um ein Leiden handelt, zu überprüfen. Anhand der Darstellung einiger gängiger Leidenskonzeptionen werden Merkmale von Leiden herausgearbeitet, die als treffende Grundannahmen für eine Leidensbestimmung gelten können. Es wird sich zeigen, dass der unerfüllte Kinderwunsch, entsprechend der Leidenskonzeptionen, als ein Leiden angesehen werden sollte, und ihm somit ein normativer Stellenwert zukommt. In einem weiteren Schritt ist zu klären, ob das Leiden an einem unerfüllten Kinderwunsch als ein Rechtfertigungsgrund für reproduktionsmedizinische Interventionen gelten kann. Dafür wird zum einen der Stellenwert von Leiden, als eine anthropologische Grundbedingung, im Zusammenhang mit dem Leidenslinderungsauftrag der Medizin diskutiert. Zum anderen werden die Risiken der reproduktionsmedizinischen Therapien sowie deren Bedeutung als Gesundheitsressourcen erörtert. Dabei wird deutlich, dass Leiden an einem unerfüllten Kinderwunsch immer ein psychosomatischer Komplex ist. Nur unter Berücksichtigung der psychoexistenziellen Dimension des Leidens ergibt sich eine Legitimation für eine angemessene somatische Intervention.

Physicians' perceptions of palliative sedation for existential suffering: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Palliative sedation for existential suffering (PS-ES) is a controversial clinical intervention. Empirical studies about physicians' perceptions do not converge in a clear position and current clinical practice guidelines do not agree either regarding this kind of intervention.

AIM

To gain deeper insight into physicians' perceptions of PS-ES, the factors influencing it, the conditions for implementing it and the alternatives to it.

DESIGN

Systematic review of qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods studies following the Peer Review Electronic Search Strategies and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses protocols; quality appraisal and thematic synthesis methodology.

DATA SOURCES

Seven electronic databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES) were exhaustively searched from inception through March 2019. Two reviewers screened paper titles, abstracts and full texts. We included only peer-reviewed journal articles published in English, French, German, Dutch, Spanish, Italian or Portuguese that focused on physicians' perceptions of PS-ES.

RESULTS

The search yielded 17 publications published between 2002 and 2017. Physicians do not hold clear views or agree if and when PS-ES is appropriate. Case-related and individual-related factors that influenced physicians' perceptions were identified. There is still no consensus regarding criteria to distinguish between necessary and sufficient conditions for invoking PS-ES. Some alternatives to PS-ES were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

To date, there is still no consensus on physicians' perceptions of PS-ES. Further research is necessary to understand factors that influence physicians' perceptions and philosophical-ethical presuppositions underlying this perceptions.

Using sedative substances until death: A mortality follow-back study on the role of healthcare settings

Background:

In the last decade, the use of sedative substances to keep a patient in deep sedation until death increased fourfold in German-speaking Switzerland, where every third patient admitted to hospital, palliative care unit or hospice died continuously deeply sedated.

Aim:

To investigate sedation practices across healthcare settings and to identify their associations with conventional symptom control.

Design:

National mortality follow-back study in Switzerland between 2013 and 2014. Questionnaires on medical end-of-life decisions were sent to attending physicians of a continuous random sample of all registered deaths aged 1 year or older.

Setting/participants:

Of all sampled deaths, 3678 individuals who died non-suddenly and not through an external cause were included.

Results:

Across settings, continuous deep sedation appeared more likely in patients aged younger than 65 years (odds ratio range: 1.53–2.34) and as part of or after intensified alleviation of pain and symptoms (odds ratio range: 1.90–10.27). In hospitals, sedation was less likely for cancer patients (odds ratio: 0.7, 95% confidence interval: 0.5–1.0, p = 0.022). In nursing homes, sedation was more likely for people who were married (odds ratio: 1.8, 95% confidence interval 1.3–2.5, p = 0.001).

Conclusion:

In all settings, sedated patients have significantly more pain problems compared to patients not receiving sedation. Large differences between settings seem to indicate different patient populations, different levels of professionals’ palliative care experience and different availability of treatment options. Our study suggests that certain patient groups who may be as vulnerable to refractory pain and symptoms as others are less likely to receive continuous deep sedation until death when warranted.

"Suffering" in Palliative Sedation: Conceptual Analysis and Implications for Decision Making in Clinical Practice

Palliative sedation is an increasingly used and, simultaneously, challenging practice at the end of life. Many controversies associated with this therapy are rooted in implicit differences regarding the understanding of "suffering" as a prerequisite for palliative sedation. The aim of this study is to inform the current debates by a conceptual analysis of two different philosophical accounts of suffering-1) the subjective and holistic concept and 2) the objective and gradual concept-and by a clinical-ethical analysis of the implications of each account for decisions about palliative sedation. We will show that although the subjective and holistic account of suffering fits well with the holistic approach of palliative care, there are considerable challenges to justify limits to requests for palliative sedation. By contrast, the objective and gradual account fits well with the need for an objective basis for clinical decisions in the context of palliative sedation but runs the risk of falling short when considering the individual and subjective experience of suffering at the end of life. We will conclude with a plea for the necessity of further combined conceptual and empirical research to develop a sound and feasible understanding of suffering, which can contribute to consistent decision making about palliative sedation.

Palliative sedation in Germany: factors and treatment practices associated with different sedation rate estimates in palliative and hospice care services

Background

Clinical practice of Palliative Sedation (PS) varies between institutions worldwide and sometimes includes problematic practices. Little available research points at different definitions and frameworks which may contribute to uncertainty of healthcare professionals in the application of PS. This analysis investigates what demographic factors and characteristics of treatment practices differ between institutions with high versus low sedation rates estimates in Palliative and Hospice Care in Germany.

Methods

Data sets from 221 organisations from a prior online survey were separated into two sub-groups divided by their estimated sedation rate A) lower/equal to 16% (n = 187; 90.8%) and B) higher than 16% (n = 19; 9.2%) for secondary analysis. Demographic factors and characteristics of PS treatment practices between the two groups were compared using T-Tests and Chi²/ Fisher Exact Tests and considered significant (*) at two-sided p < .05.

Results

Organisations in group B report that they discuss PS for a higher proportion of patients (38.5%/10.2%, p < 0.000**), rate agitation more often as an indications for PS (78.9%/ 53.5%, p = 0.050*), and are more likely to use Lorazepam (63.2%/ 37.4%, p = 0.047*), Promethazin (26.3%/ 9.6%, p = 0.044*), and (Es-)Ketamin (31.6%/ 12.8%, p = 0.039*) than representatives in group A. Both groups differ significantly in their allocation of three case scenarios to different types of PS.

Conclusions

Both definitions and patterns of clinical practice between palliative and hospice care representatives show divergence, which may be influenced one by another. A comprehensive framework considering conceptual, clinical, ethical, and legal aspects of different definitions of PS could help to better distinguish between different types and nuances of PS.

[Austrian guideline for palliative sedation therapy (long version) : Results of a Delphi process of the Austrian Palliative Society (OPG)]

BACKGROUND

Palliative sedation therapy (PST) is an important and ethically accepted therapy in the care of selected palliative care patients with otherwise unbearable suffering from refractory distress. PST is increasingly used in end-of-life care. Austria does not have a standardized ethical guideline for this exceptional practice near end of life, but there is evidence that practice varies throughout the country.

OBJECTIVE

The Austrian Palliative Society (OPG) nominated a multidisciplinary working group of 16 palliative care experts and ethicists who established the national guideline on the basis of recent review work with the aim to adhere to the Europeans Association of Palliative Care's (EAPC) framework on palliative sedation therapy respecting Austrians legal, structural and cultural background.

METHODS

Consensus was achieved by a four-step sequential Delphi process. The Delphi-process was strictly orientated to the recently published EUROIMPACT-sedation-study-checklist and to the AGREE-2-tool. Additionally national stakeholders participated in the reflection of the results.

RESULTS

As a result of a rigorous consensus process the long version of the Austrian National Palliative Sedation Guideline contains 112 statements within eleven domains and is supplemented by a philosophers excursus on suffering.

CONCLUSIONS

By establishing a national guideline for palliative sedation therapy using the Delphi technique for consensus and stakeholder involvement the Austrian Palliative Society aims to ensure nationwide good practice of palliative sedation therapy. Screening for the practicability and efficacy of this guideline will be a future task.