Expanding the Use of Continuous Sedation Until Death and Physician-Assisted Suicide.

The controversy over the equivalence of continuous sedation until death (CSD) and physician-assisted suicide/euthanasia (PAS/E) provides an opportunity to focus on a significant extended use of CSD. This extension, suggested by the equivalence of PAS/E and CSD, is designed to promote additional patient autonomy at the end-of-life. Samuel LiPuma, in his article, "Continuous Sedation Until Death as Physician-Assisted Suicide/Euthanasia: A Conceptual Analysis" claims equivalence between CSD and death; his paper is seminal in the equivalency debate. Critics contend that sedation follows proportionality protocols for which LiPuma's thesis does not adequately account. Furthermore, sedation may not eliminate consciousness, and as such LiPuma's contention that CSD is equivalent to neocortical death is suspect. We not only defend the equivalence thesis, but also expand it to include additional moral considerations. First, we explain the equivalence thesis. This is followed by a defense of the thesis against five criticisms. The third section critiques the current use of CSD. Finally, we offer two proposals that, if adopted, would broaden the use of PAS/E and CSD and thereby expand options at the end-of-life.

Should Physician-Assisted Suicide or Euthanasia be Legalized in the United States? A Medically Informed Perspective.

There is a pressing debate in the United States concerning the implied physicians' obligation to do no harm and the status of legalizing physician-assisted suicide (PAS). Key issues that underpin the debate are important to consider. These include: (1) foundational medical beginnings; (2) euthanasia's historical and legal background context; and (3) the key arguments held by those for and against legalization of PAS. This paper reviews the major claims made by proponents for the legalization of PAS and the associated complexities and concerns that help underscore the importance of conscience freedoms. Relief of suffering, respect for patient autonomy, and public policy arguments are discussed in these contexts. We argue here that the emphasis by healthcare providers should be on high quality and compassionate care for those at the end of life's journey who are questioning whether to prematurely end their lives. If medicine loses its chief focus on the quality of caring-even when a cure is not possible-it betrays its objective and purpose. In this backdrop, legalization of PAS harms not only healthcare professionals, but also the medical profession's mission itself. Medicine's foundation is grounded in the concept of never intentionally to inflict harm. Inflicting death by any means is not professional or proper, and is not trustworthy medicine.

[PAL-PRAT study: Healthcare workers' knowledge and perception of palliative practices in a Cancer Center]. / Quelle connaissance et quelle perception ont les professionnels de santé d'un Centre de lutte contre le cancer à propos des pratiques palliatives encadrées par la loi Claeys-Leonetti : étude PAL PRAT.

INTRODUCTION: The issue of end-of-life care is the subject of a sensitive debate in French society, particularly regarding the possibility for certain patients to have access to medical assistance in dying. The aim of this study was to assess the knowledge and opinion of healthcare providers on the care practices for patients at the end of life, as well as to highlight any specificities in their discourse. METHOD: A survey of healthcare providers' opinions, composed of closed and open questions, that were analyzed using a lexicometric approach, was distributed in a cancer center. RESULTS: The results of the study reveal a good knowledge of the different procedures. Professionals considered that advance directives should be systematically collected; a majority of them differentiated euthanasia from deep continuous sedation and perceived the latter as a means of relieving patients' suffering without inducing death. The different procedures related to the active assistance in dying were known by a majority of professionals and the survey did not identify a dominant trend concerning the will to practice euthanasia if the legal framework allowed it. Half of the participants considered their training insufficient, indicating the need to fill this gap. DISCUSSION: This survey underlines the importance of training and support for the professionals caring for patients in palliative situation and their relatives in France.