Drugs, delirium, and ethics at the end of life.

For older persons with delirium at the end of life, treatment involves complex trade-offs and highly value-sensitive decisions. The principles of beneficence, nonmaleficence, respect for autonomy, and justice establish important parameters but lack the structure necessary to guide clinicians in the optimal management of these patients. We propose a set of ethical rules to guide therapeutics-the canons of therapy-as a toolset to help clinicians deliberate about the competing concerns involved in the management of older patients with delirium at the end of life. These canons are standards of judgment that reflect how many experienced clinicians already intuitively practice, but which are helpful to articulate and apply as basic building blocks for a relatively neglected but emerging ethics of therapy. The canons of therapy most pertinent to the care of patients with delirium at the end of life are as follows: (1) restoration, which counsels that the goal of all treatment is to restore the patient, as much as possible, to homeostatic equilibrium; (2) means-end proportionality, which holds that every treatment should be well-fitted to the intended goal or end; (3) discretion, which counsels that an awareness of the limits of medical knowledge and practice should guide all treatment decisions; and (4) parsimony, which maintains that only as much therapeutic force as is necessary should be used to achieve the therapeutic goal. Carefully weighed and applied, these canons of therapy may provide the ethical structure needed to help clinicians optimally navigate complex cases.

Addressing Challenges With Sedation in End-of-Life Care.

In 2009, Quill and colleagues stipulated that there are three types of sedation practices at the end of life: ordinary sedation, proportionate palliative sedation (PPS), and palliative sedation to unconsciousness (PSU). Of the three, PPS and PSU are described as "last-resort options" to relieve refractory symptoms, and PSU as the most ethically controversial type that "should be quite rare." Unfortunately, little is known about actual sedation practices at the end of life in the United States. This may be due in part to a lack of conceptual clarity about sedation in end-of-life care. We argue that, until more is known about what sedation practices occur at the end of life, and how practices can be improved by research and more specific guidelines, "palliative sedation" will remain more misunderstood and controversial than it might otherwise be. In our view, overcoming the challenges posed by sedation in end-of-life care requires: 1) greater specificity regarding clinical situations and approaches to sedation, 2) research tailored to focused clinical questions, and 3) improved training and safeguards in sedation practices. Terms like PPS and PSU are relatively simple to understand in the abstract, but their application comprises various clinical situations and approaches to sedation. An obvious barrier to empirical research on sedation practices in end-of-life care is the challenge of determining these elements, especially if not clearly communicated. Additionally, we argue that training for palliative care specialists and others should include monitoring and rescue techniques as required competencies.

Efforts to transfer ectopic embryos to the uterine cavity: A systematic review.

AIM: The objectives of this review are to identify and characterize attempts to transfer ectopic embryos to the uterus, and to understand arguments for and against the feasibility of such an intervention. METHODS: An electronic literature search involved all English language articles published in MEDLINE (1948-), Web of Science (1899-), and Scopus (1960-) before July 1, 2022. Articles were included that identify or describe attempts to transfer the embryo from its ectopic location to the uterine cavity, or discuss the feasibility of such an intervention; there were no exclusion criteria (PROSPERO registration number CRD42022364913). RESULTS: The initial search yielded 3060 articles; 8 articles were included. Of these, two articles were case reports that described the successful transfer of the embryo from its ectopic location to the uterus, followed by term births; both cases involved laparotomy with salpingostomy, followed by transfer of the embryonic sac into the uterine cavity through an opening made in the uterine wall. The other six articles varied in type, and provided a number of arguments for and against the feasibility of such a procedure. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence and arguments identified in this review may help manage expectations for those interested in transferring an ectopically implanted embryo in the hope of continuing the pregnancy, but who are uncertain about the extent to which such a procedure has been attempted or may be possible. Isolated case reports, with no evidence of replication, should be interpreted with the utmost caution and do not constitute a procedure for clinical use.