Options of Last Resort: Palliative Sedation, Physician Aid in Dying, and Voluntary Cessation of Eating and Drinking.

Some patients with terminal and degenerative illnesses request assistance to hasten death when suffering is refractory to palliative care, or they strongly desire to maximize their autonomy and dignity and minimize suffering. Palliative sedation (PS), voluntarily stopping eating and drinking (VSED), and physician-assisted death (PAD) are possible options of last resort. A decision to choose PS can be made by an informed surrogate decision maker, whereas intact decision-making capacity is required to choose VSED or PAD. For all palliative treatments of last resort, the risk of harm is minimized by the use of checklists, and establishment of policies and procedures.

Assisted Death: A Call to Action to Improve End-of-Life Care.

Can we do more to address underlying reasons for this irrevocable choice?

Of dilemmas and tensions: a qualitative study of palliative care physicians' positions regarding voluntary active euthanasia in Quebec, Canada.

OBJECTIVES: In 2015, the Province of Quebec, Canada passed a law that allowed voluntary active euthanasia (VAE). Palliative care stakeholders in Canada have been largely opposed to euthanasia, yet there is little research about their views. The research question guiding this study was the following: How do palliative care physicians in Quebec position themselves regarding the practice of VAE in the context of the new provincial legislation? METHODS: We used interpretive description, an inductive methodology to answer research questions about clinical practice. A total of 18 palliative care physicians participated in semistructured interviews at two university-affiliated hospitals in Quebec. RESULTS: Participants positioned themselves in opposition to euthanasia. Their justifications were framed within their professional commitment to not hasten death, which sat in tension with the value of patients' autonomy to choose how to die. Participants described VAE as unacceptable if it impeded opportunities to evaluate and alleviate suffering. Further, they contested government rhetoric that positioned VAE as a way to improve end-of-life care. Participants felt that VAE would diminish the potential of palliative care to relieve suffering. Dilemmas were apparent in their narratives, about reconciling respect for patient autonomy with broader palliative care values, and the value of accompanying and not abandoning patients who make requests for VAE while being committed to neither prolonging nor hastening death. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides insight into nuanced positions of experienced palliative care physicians in Quebec and confirms expected tensions between an important stakeholder and the practice of VAE as guided by the new legislation.

Should Pediatric Euthanasia be Legalized?

Voluntary active euthanasia for adults at their explicit request has been legal in Belgium and the Netherlands since 2002. In those countries, acceptance of the practice for adults has been followed by acceptance of the practice for children. Opponents of euthanasia see this as a dangerous slippery slope. Proponents argue that euthanasia is sometimes ethically appropriate for minors and that, with proper safeguards, it should be legally available in appropriate circumstances for patients at any age. In this Ethics Rounds, we asked philosophers from the United States and the Netherlands, and a Dutch pediatrician, to discuss the ethics of legalizing euthanasia for children.

Morally-Relevant Similarities and Differences Between Assisted Dying Practices in Paradigm and Non-Paradigm Circumstances: Could They Inform Regulatory Decisions?

There has been contentious debate over the years about whether there are morally relevant similarities and differences between the three practices of continuous deep sedation until death, physician-assisted suicide, and voluntary euthanasia. Surprisingly little academic attention has been paid to a comparison of the uses of these practices in the two types of circumstances in which they are typically performed. A comparative domains of ethics analysis methodological approach is used in the paper to compare 1) the use of the three practices in paradigm circumstances, and 2) the use of the practices in paradigm circumstances to their use in non-paradigm circumstances. The analytical outcomes suggest that a bright moral line cannot be demonstrated between any two of the practices in paradigm circumstances, and that there are significant, morally-relevant distinctions between their use in paradigm and non-paradigm circumstances. A thought experiment is employed to illustrate how these outcomes could possibly inform the decisions of hypothetical deliberators who are engaged in the collaborative development of assisted dying regulatory frameworks.

[Ethical aspects of palliative medicine]. / Ethische Aspekte der Palliativmedizin.

BACKGROUND: The aim of palliative medicine is to adequately care for and attend to patients suffering from life-threatening and incurable medical conditions according to their needs. This implies that for these patients it is not a matter of dealing with diseases that can be treated separately but with their existence in the face of their approaching death. OBJECTIVE: This article investigates which ethical questions are currently prioritized for discussion in palliative medicine. METHOD: Review of the current medical and ethical literature and own reflections with a relational ethics approach that puts patient wishes at the centre of attention. RESULTS: Palliative medicine is not a "luxury medicine" but has to be considered as primary care to which every person is entitled. If there is a need for improvement of care, promoting it is an ethical obligation. In this respect the question of a "good death" is extremely complex. The term is connected to the ethics of a good life and includes the dimensions of happiness-suffering as well as meaning-futility; therefore, the best possible treatment of symptoms, most of all pain is just as important as recognizing subjective questions of meaning. Dealing with the wishes of patients, including possible wishes to die, are the starting point for elaborating palliative care measures. It is concerned with finding the right point in time for each patient individually, in their best interests and according to their wishes, at which dying should no longer be held back but for their own benefit the patient should be accompanied and supported during dying. CONCLUSION: In the current construction of palliative medicine, including its normative configuration within the law and medical ethics, the criteria which are essential for the quality of life up to death are being discussed.

Expanding the Use of Continuous Sedation Until Death: Moving Beyond the Last Resort for the Terminally Ill.

As currently practiced, the use of continuous sedation until death (CSD) is controlled by clinicians in a way that may deny patients a key choice in controlling their dying process. Ethical guidelines from the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pain Medicine describe CSD as a "last resort," and a position statement from the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine describe it as "an intervention reserved for extreme situations." Accordingly, patients must progress to unremitting pain and suffering and reach a last-resort stage before the option to pursue CSD is considered. Alternatively, we present and defend a new guideline in which decisionally capable, terminally ill patients who have a life expectancy of less than six months may request CSD before being subjected to the refractory suffering of a treatment of "last resort."

Can physicians conceive of performing euthanasia in case of psychiatric disease, dementia or being tired of living?

BACKGROUND: Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (EAS) in patients with psychiatric disease, dementia or patients who are tired of living (without severe morbidity) is highly controversial. Although such cases can fall under the Dutch Euthanasia Act, Dutch physicians seem reluctant to perform EAS, and it is not clear whether or not physicians reject the possibility of EAS in these cases. AIM: To determine whether physicians can conceive of granting requests for EAS in patients with cancer, another physical disease, psychiatric disease, dementia or patients who are tired of living, and to evaluate whether physician characteristics are associated with conceivability. A cross-sectional study (survey) was conducted among 2269 Dutch general practitioners, elderly care physicians and clinical specialists. RESULTS: The response rate was 64% (n=1456). Most physicians found it conceivable that they would grant a request for EAS in a patient with cancer or another physical disease (85% and 82%). Less than half of the physicians found this conceivable in patients with psychiatric disease (34%), early-stage dementia (40%), advanced dementia (29-33%) or tired of living (27%). General practitioners were most likely to find it conceivable that they would perform EAS. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that a minority of Dutch physicians find it conceivable that they would grant a request for EAS from a patient with psychiatric disease, dementia or a patient who is tired of living. For physicians who find EAS inconceivable in these cases, legal arguments and personal moral objections both probably play a role.

Physician-assisted death with limited access to palliative care.

Even among advocates of legalising physician-assisted death, many argue that this should be done only once palliative care has become widely available. Meanwhile, according to them, physician-assisted death should be banned. Four arguments are often presented to support this claim, which we call the argument of lack of autonomy, the argument of existing alternatives, the argument of unfair inequalities and the argument of the antagonism between physician-assisted death and palliative care. We argue that although these arguments provide strong reasons to take appropriate measures to guarantee access to good quality palliative care to everyone who needs it, they do not justify a ban on physician-assisted death until we have achieved this goal.

Medical expertise, existential suffering and ending life.

In this article, I assess the position that voluntary euthanasia (VE) and physician-assisted suicide (PAS) ought not to be accepted in the cases of persons who suffer existentially but who have no medical condition, because existential questions do not fall within the domain of physicians' professional expertise. I maintain that VE and PAS based on suffering arising from medical conditions involves existential issues relevantly similar to those confronted in connection with existential suffering. On that basis I conclude that if VE and PAS based on suffering arising from medical conditions is taken to fall within the domain of medical expertise, it is not consistent to use the view that physicians' professional expertise does not extend to existential questions as a reason for denying requests for VE and PAS from persons who suffer existentially but have no medical condition.

Voluntary palliated starvation: a lawful and ethical way to die?

Increasingly, individuals want control over their own destiny. This includes the way in which they die and the timing of their death. The desire for self-determination at the end of life is one of the drivers for the ever-increasing number of jurisdictions overseas that are legalising voluntary euthanasia and/or assisted suicide, and for the continuous attempts to reform State and Territory law in Australia. Despite public support for law reform in this field, legislative change in Australia is unlikely in the near future given the current political landscape. This article argues that there may be another solution which provides competent adults with control over their death and to have any pain and symptoms managed by doctors, but which is currently lawful and consistent with prevailing ethical principles. "Voluntary palliated starvation" refers to the process which occurs when a competent individual chooses to stop eating and drinking, and receives palliative care to address pain, suffering and symptoms that may be experienced by the individual as he or she approaches death. The article argues that, at least in some circumstances, such a death would be lawful for the individual and doctors involved, and consistent with principles of medical ethics.

Palliative treatment alternatives and euthanasia consultations: a qualitative interview study.

CONTEXT: There is much debate about euthanasia within the context of palliative care. The six criteria of careful practice for lawful euthanasia in The Netherlands aim to safeguard the euthanasia practice against abuse and a disregard of palliative treatment alternatives. Those criteria need to be evaluated by the treating physician as well as an independent euthanasia consultant. OBJECTIVES: To investigate 1) whether and how palliative treatment alternatives come up during or preceding euthanasia consultations and 2) how the availability of possible palliative treatment alternatives are assessed by the independent consultant. METHODS: We interviewed 14 euthanasia consultants and 12 physicians who had requested a euthanasia consultation. We transcribed and analyzed the interviews and held consensus meetings about the interpretation. RESULTS: Treating physicians generally discuss the whole range of treatment options with the patient before the euthanasia consultation. Consultants actively start thinking about and proposing palliative treatment alternatives after consultations, when they have concluded that the criteria for careful practice have not been met. During the consultation, they take into account various aspects while assessing the criterion concerning the availability of reasonable alternatives, and they clearly distinguish between euthanasia and continuous deep sedation. Most consultants said that it was necessary to verify which forms of palliative care had previously been discussed. Advice concerning palliative care seemed to be related to the timing of the consultation ("early" or "late"). Euthanasia consultants were sometimes unsure whether or not to advise about palliative care, considering it not their task or inappropriate in view of the previous discussions. CONCLUSION: Two different roles of a euthanasia consultant were identified: a limited one, restricted to the evaluation of the criteria for careful practice, and a broad one, extended to actively providing advice about palliative care. Further medical and ethical debate is needed to determine consultants' most appropriate role.