French Swiss physicians' attitude toward palliative sedation: Influence of prognosis and type of suffering.

OBJECTIVE: Palliative sedation is a last resort medical act aimed at relieving intolerable suffering induced by intractable symptoms in patients at the end-of-life. This act is generally accepted as being medically indicated under certain circumstances. A controversy remains in the literature as to its ethical validity. There is a certain vagueness in the literature regarding the legitimacy of palliative sedation in cases of non-physical refractory symptoms, especially "existential suffering." This pilot study aims to measure the influence of two independent variables (short/long prognosis and physical/existential suffering) on the physicians' attitudes toward palliative sedation (dependent variable). METHODS: We used a 2 × 2 experimental design as described by Blondeau et al. Four clinical vignettes were developed (vignette 1: short prognosis/existential suffering; vignette 2: long prognosis/existential suffering; vignette 3: short prognosis/physical suffering; vignette 4: long prognosis/physical suffering). Each vignette presented a terminally ill patient with a summary description of his physical and psychological condition, medication, and family situation. The respondents' attitude towards sedation was assessed with a six-point Likert scale. A total of 240 vignettes were sent to selected Swiss physicians. RESULTS: 74 vignettes were completed (36%). The means scores for attitudes were 2.62 ± 2.06 (v1), 1.88 ± 1.54 (v2), 4.54 ± 1.67 (v3), and 4.75 ± 1.71 (v4). General linear model analyses indicated that only the type of suffering had a significant impact on the attitude towards sedation (F = 33.92, df = 1, p = 0.000). Significance of the results: The French Swiss physicians' attitude toward palliative sedation is more favorable in case of physical suffering than in existential suffering. These results are in line with those found in the study of Blondeau et al. with Canadian physicians and will be discussed in light of the arguments given by physicians to explain their decisions.

The response of a Swiss university hospital's palliative care consult team to assisted suicide within the institution.

In January 2006 the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois (CHUV), a large university hospital in Lausanne, Switzerland, became the first hospital in Switzerland to allow assisted suicide (AS) in exceptional cases within its walls. However, euthanasia is illegal. This decision has posed several ethical and practical dilemmas for the hospital's palliative care consult service. To address these, the team embarked on a formal process of open dialogue amongst its members with the goal of identifying a collective response and position. This process involved meetings every 4 to 6 weeks over the course of 10 months. An iterative process unfolded. One of the principal dilemmas relates to finding a balance between the team's position against AS and the patient's autonomy and the institution's directive. Although all team members expressed opposition to AS, there were mixed opinions as to whether or not the team members should be present during the act if requested so by patients. Some thought this could be misinterpreted as complicity in the act and could send out mixed messages to the public and other health professionals about palliative care. Others felt that the team's commitment to nonabandonment obliged them to be present even if they did not provide the drug or give any advice or assistance. The implications of nonabandonment are explored, as are several other questions such as whether or not the teams are obliged to provide detailed information on AS when requested by patients.