Palliative opioid use, palliative sedation and euthanasia: reaffirming the distinction.

We read with interest the extended essay published from Riisfeldt and are encouraged by an empirical ethics article which attempts to ground theory and its claims in the real world. However, such attempts also have real-world consequences. We are concerned to read the paper's conclusion that clinical evidence weakens the distinction between euthanasia and normal palliative care prescribing. This is important. Globally, the most significant barrier to adequate symptom control in people with life-limiting illness is poor access to opioid analgesia. Opiophobia makes clinicians reluctant to prescribe and their patients reluctant to take opioids that might provide significant improvements in quality of life. We argue that the evidence base for the safety of opioid prescribing is broader than that presented, restricting the search to palliative care literature produces significant bias as safety experience and literature for opioids and sedatives exists in many fields. This is not acknowledged in the synthesis presented. By considering additional evidence, we reject the need for agnosticism and reaffirm that palliative opioid prescribing is safe. Second, palliative sedation in a clinical context is a poorly defined concept covering multiple interventions and treatment intentions. We detail these and show that continuous deep palliative sedation (CDPS) is a specific practice that remains controversial globally and is not considered routine practice. Rejecting agnosticism towards opioids and excluding CDPS from the definition of routine care allows the rejection of Riisfeldt's headline conclusion. On these grounds, we reaffirm the important distinction between palliative care prescribing and euthanasia in practice.

Regional neurovascular inflammation and apoptosis are detected after electrical contact injury.

High-voltage electrical injuries are a devastating form of trauma often treated in burn centers. Examining superficial wounds alone may lead to an inaccurate assessment of local, regional, and systemic severity of injury. In this work, the neurovasculature at sites regionally distinct from the contact wound were assessed for cellular pathology. Nine male Sprague-Dawley rats subjected to 1000 V direct-current shocks were separated into three groups: high-shock (>10-second contact), low-shock (<4-second contact), and control. Injury video was captured with a forward-looking infrared camera, and a thermal excitation analysis was performed. The neurovascular bundles from the iliofemoral region to the distal posterior tibial region were dissected from the hind limbs of the shocked animals and stained by immunohistochemistry for antibodies specific to apoptosis (APO) 1, caspase-3, activating transcription factor 3, high-mobility group box-1, granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor and interleukin-6. Real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction was used to quantify differential transcript levels of superoxide dismutases 1, 2, and 3 and heat-shock protein 70 from peripheral blood mononuclear cells and liver tissue. Finally, a protein array was used to identify key inflammatory cytokines in blood plasma. Significant dose-dependent trends were identified in apoptotic markers as well as inflammatory markers in both arterial and nerve tissues. Although arterial tissue exhibited a gradual decline in these markers proximally from the wound site, nerve tissue maintained a constant level at every location. Transcript analysis revealed an up-regulation of extracellular superoxide dismutase, and down-regulation of heat-shock protein 70, whereas plasma inflammatory cytokine levels indicated no significant changes. Thermal excitation analysis revealed a linear temperature increase, with a dose-dependent thermal maximum. In this study the authors have shown that neurovascular APO and inflammation are present at locations extremely proximal to electrical injury contact sites and this appears to be dose-dependent. Nerve tissue APO and inflammation may extend farther proximally than the iliofemoral region, and multiple proapoptotic mechanisms may be activated. No systemic inflammatory response was indicated in this study.