End-of-life sedation: is there an alternative?

Current Status and Future Directions of Research on Palliative Sedation

Patients with terminal cancer experience very severe symptoms during the end of life, and palliative sedation (PS) may be considered if those symptoms are refractory to any other treatment. This brief report presents ethical considerations, practices, and recent concerns on PS. PS is quite different from euthanasia. There is a lack of consensus and standards on protocols, but its notable effects have been reported in hospice care settings. Most studies to date have reported no difference in survival between patients receiving PS and those not, and PS must be conducted proportionally with the lightest level of sedation. The most common indication for PS is delirium, and midazolam is the main sedative used. It is recommended that information regarding PS should be provided to patients and their caregivers repeatedly as early as possible. Existential suffering alone is not an indication for PS, and there is a lack of evidence on bispectral analysis. Additional research on PS is needed in Korea.

Sedación paliativa en el final de la vida

La sedación paliativa es una práctica clínica ampliamente asumida y aplicada en situaciones que anticipan el final de la vida. No obstante, a pesar de sus beneficios cuando los síntomas refractarios no tienen otra alternativa, en algunas ocasiones la sedación puede ser fuente de numerosos dilemas bioéticos relacionados con el principio de doble efecto que actúa como una de las herramientas base, en el ámbito de la bioética, sobre las que puede sustentarse la licitud de la sedación en el final de la vida.

The role of end-of-life palliative sedation: medical and ethical aspects – Review

Background and objective

Palliative sedation is a medical procedure that has been used for more than 25 years to relieve refractory symptoms not responsive to any previous treatment in patients with no possibility of cure and near the end of life. Many uncertainties persist on the theme regarding definition, indications, decision making, most appropriate place to perform the procedure, most used drugs, need for monitoring, fluids and nutritional support, and possible ethical dilemmas. The objective of this review was to seek a probable consensus among the authors regarding these topics not yet fully defined.

Method

An exploratory search was made in secondary sources, from 1990 to 2016, regarding palliative sedation and its clinical and bioethical implications.

Conclusions

Palliative sedation is an alternative to alleviate end-of-life patient suffering due to refractory symptoms, particularly dyspnea and delirium, after all other treatment options have been exhausted. Decision making involves prior explanations, discussions and agreement of the team, patient, and/or family members. It can be performed in general hospital units, hospices and even at home. Midazolam is the most indicated drug, and neuroleptics may also be required in the presence of delirium. These patients’ monitoring is limited to comfort observation, relief of symptoms, and presence of adverse effects. There is no consensus on whether or not to suspend fluid and nutritional support, and the decision must be made with family members. From the bioethical standpoint, the great majority of authors are based on intention and proportionality to distinguish between palliative sedation, euthanasia, or assisted suicide.

[The role of end-of-life palliative sedation: medical and ethical aspects - Review]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Palliative sedation is a medical procedure that has been used for more than 25 years to relieve refractory symptoms not responsive to any previous treatment in patients with no possibility of cure and near the end of life. Many uncertainties persist on the theme regarding definition, indications, decision making, most appropriate place to perform the procedure, most used drugs, need for monitoring, fluids and nutritional support, and possible ethical dilemmas. The objective of this review was to seek a probable consensus among the authors regarding these topics not yet fully defined.

METHOD

An exploratory search was made in secondary sources, from 1990 to 2016, regarding palliative sedation and its clinical and bioethical implications.

CONCLUSIONS

Palliative sedation is an alternative to alleviate end-of-life patient suffering due to refractory symptoms, particularly dyspnea and delirium, after all other treatment options have been exhausted. Decision making involves prior explanations, discussions and agreement of the team, patient, and/or family members. It can be performed in general hospital units, hospices and even at home. Midazolam is the most indicated drug, and neuroleptics may also be required in the presence of delirium. These patients' monitoring is limited to comfort observation, relief of symptoms, and presence of adverse effects. There is no consensus on whether or not to suspend fluid and nutritional support, and the decision must be made with family members. From the bioethical standpoint, the great majority of authors are based on intention and proportionality to distinguish between palliative sedation, euthanasia, or assisted suicide.

Controversies surrounding continuous deep sedation at the end of life: the parliamentary and societal debates in France

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.

Summary

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.