Distinction between euthanasia and palliative sedation is clear-cut

Ethical considerations in the relief of cancer pain

The management of pain for patients with cancer and cancer survivors is a critical clinical task that involves a multitude of ethical issues at almost every phase of the cancer experience. This review is divided into three sections: In the first, we address rights and duties in the relief of pain from the perspective of patients, clinicians, health care institutions and organizations, and public policy. This section includes a detailed description of issues and duties in relation to opioid misuse and addiction. In the second section, we discuss the ethical consideration of therapeutic planning. The final section addresses ethical considerations in the management of pain at the end of life including a detailed discussion regarding ethical issues relating to the use of palliative sedation as a clinical intervention of last resort.

Expanded terminal sedation in end-of-life care

Despite advances in palliative care, some patients still suffer significantly at the end of life. Terminal Sedation (TS) refers to the use of sedatives in dying patients until the point of death. The following limits are commonly applied: (1) symptoms should be refractory, (2) sedatives should be administered proportionally to symptoms and (3) the patient should be imminently dying. The term 'Expanded TS' (ETS) can be used to describe the use of sedation at the end of life outside one or more of these limits.In this paper, we explore and defend ETS, focusing on jurisdictions where assisted dying is lawful. We argue that ETS is morally permissible: (1) in cases of non-refractory suffering where earlier treatments are likely to fail, (2) where gradual sedation is likely to be ineffective or where unconsciousness is a clinically desirable outcome, (3) where the patient meets all criteria for assisted dying or (4) where the patient has greater than 2 weeks to live, is suffering intolerably, and sedation is considered to be the next best treatment option for their suffering.While remaining two distinct practices, there is scope for some convergence between the criteria for assisted dying and the criteria for ETS. Dying patients who are currently ineligible for TS, or even assisted dying, should not be left to suffer. ETS provides one means to bridge this gap.

Comparison of inpatient and outpatient palliative sedation practice - A prospective observational study

INTRODUCTION

Palliative sedation (PS) is an intrusive measure to relieve patients at the end of their life from otherwise untreatable symptoms. Intensive discussion of the advantages and limitations of palliative care with the patients and their relatives should precede the initiation of PS since PS is terminated by the patient's death in most cases. Drugs for PS are usually administered intravenously. Midazolam is widely used, either alone or in combination with other substances. PS can be conducted in both inpatient and outpatient settings; however, a quality analysis comparing both modalities was missing so far.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This prospective observational study collected data from patients undergoing PS inpatient at the palliative care unit (PCU, n = 26) or outpatient at a hospice (n = 2) or at home (specialized outpatient palliative care [SAPV], n = 31) between July 2017 and June 2018. Demographical data, indications for PS, and drug protocols were analyzed. The depth of sedation according to the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) and the degree of satisfaction of staff members and patient's relatives were included as parameters for quality assessment.

RESULTS

Patients undergoing PS at the PCU were slightly younger compared to outpatients (hospice and SAPV combined). Most patients suffered from malignant diseases, and midazolam was the backbone of sedation for inpatients and outpatients. The median depth of sedation was between +1 and -3 according to the RASS with a trend to deeper sedation prior to death. The median degree of satisfaction was "good," scored by staff members and by patient's relatives. Significant differences between inpatients and outpatients were not seen in protocols, depth of sedation, and degree of satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

The data support the thesis that PS is possible for inpatients and outpatients with comparable results. For choosing the best place for PS, other aspects such as patient's and relative's wishes, stress, and medical reasons should be considered.

Continuous Deep Sedation Until Death: First National Survey in France after the 2016 Law Promulgating It

CONTEXT

The French parliament passed a groundbreaking law in 2016, opening a right for patients to access continuous and deep sedation until death (CDS) at the end of life, under conditions. Parliamentarians' goal was to consolidate patients' rights whilst avoiding legislating on medical aid in dying.

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a first national retrospective survey on CDS to evaluate the number of CDS requested, proposed and performed in 2017 and to elicit qualitative data from physicians on the practice and on the terms used by patients to refer to CDS.

METHODS

Early 2018, an online survey was sent to all French hospitals, nursing homes, hospital at homes services and general practitioners (GPs). Descriptive statistics and qualitative inductive content analysis were used to analyze the data and comments of respondents.

RESULTS

The qualitative data show that respondents generally approve the law on CDS as it sets a legal framework; nonetheless, there is a persistent controversy about CDS vs. euthanasia for some physicians in all settings. GPs reported limited access to midazolam and the difficulty in organizing multidisciplinary procedures as major constraints. In hospital settings in particular, differentiating CDS from other sedation practices is uneasy. All physicians reported patients use multiple elements of language to request CDS.

CONCLUSION

After the law was passed in France, CDS were requested, proposed and performed in all medical settings, in nursing homes, at home. The qualitative data presented here show the relevance of exploring physicians' reflexive stances on this practice in different settings and within the context of a patient-physician relationship marked by a new patient's right. The study highlights the wide range of elements of language used by patients at the end of life, as understood by respondent physicians to mean a request for CDS and underscores the polymorphous meaning of CDS.

Prevalence of ethical dilemmas in advanced cancer patients (secondary analysis of the PALCOM study)

PURPOSE

The main aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of ethical dilemmas in the end-of-life process in advanced cancer patients.

METHODS

We carried out a multicenter, cross-sectional, observational, prospective study in a cohort of cancer patients whose life expectancy was ≤ 6 months. We recorded sociodemographic characteristics, diagnosis of cancer, symptom burden, cognitive and functional status, emotional impact, and sociofamilial risk factors. The main outcome measure was the detection of ethical dilemmas, based on the following definition: conflict in decision-making during the end-of-life process that involves the need to choose between morally acceptable opposing options, where none is clearly preferable to another.

RESULTS

We included 324 patients (mean age, 69 years; 58% men). We identified 117 dilemmas in 90 patients (27.8%). The dilemmas detected were as follows: (a) conflicts of information (adaptive denial, conspiracy of silence, information exceeding patient's desired limit), 15.7%; (b) discrepancies in proportionality (discussion on futility, rejection of treatment, withdrawal of life support measures), 16.7%; (c) unrealistic expectations about the outcome of clinical trials, 2.5%; and (d) request for euthanasia or medically assisted suicide, 1.2%. We observed a greater prevalence of ethical dilemmas in men, in patients receiving active cancer treatment, and in patients with emotional distress (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of ethical dilemmas during the end-of-life process in cancer patients is relevant. Most dilemmas were associated directly or indirectly with respect for patient autonomy. In this context, the communication skills of the health professionals and advanced care planning take on a key role.

A response to critics: weakening the ethical distinction between euthanasia, palliative opioid use and palliative sedation

My essay 'Weakening the ethical distinction between euthanasia, palliative opioid use and palliative sedation' has recently generated some critique which I will attempt to address in this response. Regarding the empirical question of whether palliative opioid and sedative use shorten survival time, Schofield et al raise the three concerns that my literature review contains a cherry-picking bias through focusing solely on the palliative care population, that continuous deep palliative sedation falls beyond the scope of routine palliative care, and that my research may contribute to opiophobia and be harmful to palliative care provision globally. Materstvedt argues that euthanasia 'ends' rather than 'relieves' suffering and is not a treatment, and that the arguments in my essay are therefore predicated on a 'category mistake' and are a non-starter. Symons and Giebel both raise the concern that my Kantian and Millian interpretation of the Doctrine of Double Effect is anachronistic, and that when interpreted from the contemporaneous perspective of Aquinas it is a sound ethical principle. Giebel also argues that palliative opioid and sedative use do meet the Doctrine of Double Effect's four criteria on this Thomistic account, and that it does not contradict the Doctrine of the Sanctity of Human Life. In this response I will explore and defend against most of these claims, in doing so clarifying my original argument that the empirical and ethical differences between palliative opioid/sedative use and euthanasia may not be as significant as often believed, thereby advancing the case for euthanasia.