Clinical and ethical aspects of palliative sedation with propofol-A retrospective quantitative and qualitative study

How should respiratory depression and loss of airway patency be handled during initiation of palliative sedation?

BACKGROUND

Loss of airway patency has been reported during initiation of palliative sedation. In present guidelines the loss of airway patency during initiation of palliative sedation is not addressed. Airway patency can be restored by jaw thrust/chin lift or placing the patient in the recovery position.

AIM

A structured ethical analysis of how respiratory depression and loss of airway patency during initiation of palliative sedation should be handled. The essence of the dilemma is whether it is appropriate to apply simple non-invasive methods to restore airway patency in order to avoid the patient's immediate death.

DESIGN

A structured analysis based on the four principles of healthcare ethics and stakeholders' interests.

RESULTS

Beneficence and autonomy support a decision not to regain airway patency whereas non-maleficence lends weight to a decision to restore airway patency. Whether the proportionality criterion of the principle of double effect is met depends on the features of the individual case. The ethical problem appears to be a genuine dilemma where important values and arguments point to different conclusions.

CONCLUSION

Whether to restore airway patency when the airway is obstructed during initiation of palliative sedation will ultimately be based on clinical judgment taking into account both any known patient preferences and relevant clinical information. There are strong arguments favoring both options in this clinical and ethical dilemma. The fact that a clear and universal recommendation cannot be made does not imply indifference regarding what is the clinically and ethically best option for each individual patient.

Ought the level of sedation to be reduced during deep palliative sedation? A clinical and ethical analysis

BACKGROUND

Deep palliative sedation (DPS) is applied as a response to refractory suffering at the end of life when symptoms cannot be relieved in an awake state. DPS entails a dilemma of whether to provide uninterrupted sedation-in which case DPS would turn into deep and continuous palliative sedation (DCPS) -to minimise the risk that any further intolerable suffering will occur or whether to pause sedation to avoid unnecessary sedation. DPS is problematic in that it leaves the patient 'socially dead' by eradicating their autonomy and conscious experiences.

AIM

To perform a normative ethical analysis of whether guidelines should recommend attempting to elevate consciousness during DPS.

DESIGN

A structured analysis based on the four principles of healthcare ethics and consideration of stakeholders' interests.

RESULTS

When DPS is initiated it reflects that symptom relief is valued above the patient's ability to exercise autonomy and experience social interaction. However, if a decrease in symptom burden occurs, waking could be performed without patients experiencing suffering. Such pausing of deep sedation would satisfy the principles of autonomy and beneficence. Certain patients require substantial dose increases to maintain sedation. Waking such patients risks causing distressing symptoms. This does not happen if deep sedation is kept uninterrupted. Thus, the principle of non-maleficence points towards not pausing sedation. The authors' clinical ethics analysis demonstrates why other stakeholders' interests do not appear to override arguments in favour of providing uninterrupted sedation.

CONCLUSION

Stopping or pausing DPS should always be considered, but should not be routinely attempted.

Palliative Sedation in End-of-Life Patients in Eastern Asia: A Narrative Review

Although palliative sedation (PS) is a common practice in the palliative care of cancer patients in Western countries, there is little related research on the practice in Korea. PS can be classified into several categories according to sedation level and continuity. PS is clearly distinct from euthanasia. While euthanasia is illegal and regarded as unethical in Korea, there is little ethical and legal controversy about PS in terms of the doctrine of double effect. Most studies have asserted that PS does not shorten the survival of terminal cancer patients. Since preference for PS heavily depends on stakeholder value, it should be preceded by shared decision-making through full communication among the patient, family members, and medical team. This is a narrative review article analyzing previous studies, especially from the three Eastern Asian countries, Korea, Japan and Taiwan, which share similar cultures compared with Western countries. Practical issues concerning PS—for example, prevalence, type and dosage of medications, salvage medication, timing of its initiation, and assessment—are described in detail.

General anaesthesia in end-of-life care: extending the indications for anaesthesia beyond surgery

In this article, we describe an extension of general anaesthesia – beyond facilitating surgery – to the relief of suffering during dying. Some refractory symptoms at the end of life (pain, delirium, distress, dyspnoea) might be managed by analgesia, but in high doses, adverse effects (e.g. respiratory depression) can hasten death. Sedation may be needed for agitation or distress and can be administered as continuous deep sedation (also referred to as terminal or palliative sedation) generally using benzodiazepines. However, for some patients these interventions are not enough, and others may express a clear desire to be completely unconscious as they die. We summarise the historical background of an established practice that we refer to as ‘general anaesthesia in end‐of‐life care’. We discuss its contexts and some ethical and legal issues that it raises, arguing that these are largely similar issues to those already raised by continuous deep sedation. To be a valid option, general anaesthesia in end‐of‐life care will require a clear multidisciplinary framework and consensus practice guidelines. We see these as an impending development for which the specialty should prepare. General anaesthesia in end‐of‐life care raises an important debate about the possible role of anaesthesia in the relief of suffering beyond the context of surgical/diagnostic interventions.