Development of a clinical practice guideline for palliative sedation

Palliative sedation is an effective symptom control strategy for patients who suffer from intractable symptoms at the end of life. Evidence suggests that the use of this practice varies considerably. In order to minimize variation in the practice of palliative sedation within our health region, we developed a clinical practice guideline (CPG) for the use of palliative sedation. Using available evidence from the literature, a five step process was employed to develop the CPG: (1) a working group was charged with the mandate to develop a draft guideline; (2) a working definition for palliative sedation was developed; (3) criteria for use of sedation were determined; (4) critical steps to be taken prior to initiation of sedation were defined; and (5) the CPG was reviewed by local stakeholders. Feedback from the wider group of stakeholders was used to arrive at the final CPG, which subsequently received approval from the local Medical Advisory Board. The process used to develop the CPG served to develop consensus within the local community of palliative care clinicians regarding the practice of palliative sedation. Subsequently, the CPG was used as a tool for educating other health care providers.

Sedation in palliative care - a critical analysis of 7 years experience

BACKGROUND: The administration of sedatives in terminally ill patients becomes an increasingly feasible medical option in end-of-life care. However, sedation for intractable distress has raised considerable medical and ethical concerns. In our study we provide a critical analysis of seven years experience with the application of sedation in the final phase of life in our palliative care unit. METHODS: Medical records of 548 patients, who died in the Palliative Care Unit of GK Havelhoehe between 1995-2002, were retrospectively analysed with regard to sedation in the last 48 hrs of life. The parameters of investigation included indication, choice and kind of sedation, prevalence of intolerable symptoms, patients' requests for sedation, state of consciousness and communication abilities during sedation. Critical evaluation included a comparison of the period between 1995-1999 and 2000-2002. RESULTS: 14.6% (n = 80) of the patients in palliative care had sedation given by the intravenous route in the last 48 hrs of their life according to internal guidelines. The annual frequency to apply sedation increased continuously from 7% in 1995 to 19% in 2002. Main indications shifted from refractory control of physical symptoms (dyspnoea, gastrointestinal, pain, bleeding and agitated delirium) to more psychological distress (panic-stricken fear, severe depression, refractory insomnia and other forms of affective decompensation). Patients' and relatives' requests for sedation in the final phase were significantly more frequent during the period 2000-2002. CONCLUSION: Sedation in the terminal or final phase of life plays an increasing role in the management of intractable physical and psychological distress. Ethical concerns are raised by patients' requests and needs on the one hand, and the physicians' self-understanding on the other hand. Hence, ethically acceptable criteria and guidelines for the decision making are needed with special regard to the nature of refractory and intolerable symptoms, patients' informed consent and personal needs, the goals and aims of medical sedation in end-of-life care.

The use of opioids and sedatives at the end of life

Opioids and sedative drugs are commonly used to control symptoms in patients with advanced cancer. However, it is often assumed that the use of these drugs inevitably results in shortening of life. Ethically, this outcome is excused by reference to the doctrine of double effect. In this review, we assess the evidence for patterns of use of opioids and sedatives in palliative care and examine whether the doctrine of double effect is needed to justify their use. We conclude that patients are more likely to receive higher doses of both opioids and sedatives as they get closer to death. However, there is no evidence that initiation of treatment, or increases in dose of opioids or sedatives, is associated with precipitation of death. Thus, we conclude that the doctrine of double effect is not essential for justification of the use of these drugs, and may act as a deterrent to the provision of good symptom control.

Similarity and difference among standard medical care, palliative sedation therapy, and euthanasia: a multidimensional scaling analysis on physicians' and the general population's opinions

There is a strong controversy about the differences among standard medical care, palliative sedation therapy, and euthanasia in recent medical literature. To investigate the similarities and differences among these medical treatments, a secondary analysis of two previous surveys was performed. In those surveys, Japanese physicians and the general population were asked to identify their treatment recommendations or preferences for intolerable and refractory distress in the terminal stage. The options were standard medical care without intentional sedation, mild sedation, intermittent deep sedation, continuous deep sedation, and physician-assisted suicide (PAS)/euthanasia. Multidimensional scaling analysis mapped their responses. The physician responses were clustered into 3 groups: 1) standard medical care, 2) palliative sedation therapy including mild, intermittent deep, continuous deep sedation, and 3) PAS/euthanasia. The general population's responses were classified into 3 subgroups: 1) standard medical care, 2) mild and intermittent deep sedation, and 3) a group including continuous deep sedation and PAS/euthanasia. Physicians placed continuous deep sedation closer to mild and intermittent sedation, while the general population mapped it closer to PAS/euthanasia. In conclusion, physicians and general population can generally differentiate the three approaches--standard medical care, palliative sedation therapy, and PAS/euthanasia. We recommend that mild and intermittent deep sedation should be differentiated from standard medical care, and that continuous deep sedation should be dealt with separately from other types of sedation. Clear definitions of palliative sedation therapy will contribute to quality discussion.

Definition of sedation for symptom relief: a systematic literature review and a proposal of operational criteria

Although sedation for symptom relief in terminally ill patients has been the focus of recent medical studies, the interpretation of research findings is difficult due to the confusing terminology. To clarify the agreements and inconsistencies in the definitions of sedation, a systematic review was performed. We searched the literature through MEDLINE from 1990 to July 2001. A total of 7 articles met the inclusion criteria. All studies included the use of sedative medications or the intention to reduce patient consciousness as an essential element of sedation. All but one study explicitly described that the primary aim of sedation was symptom palliation. Three definitions stated that target symptoms were severe, and 4 articles reported the refractory nature of the distress. On the other hand, there were marked inconsistencies in the definition of the degree of sedation, duration, pharmacological properties of medications used, target symptoms, and target populations. This review suggests that sedation includes two core factors: the presence of severe suffering refractory to standard palliative management, and the use of sedative medications with the primary aim to relieve distress. Thus, "palliative sedation therapy" can be defined as "the use of sedative medications to relieve intolerable and refractory distress by the reduction in patient consciousness." The marked inconsistencies in the definition of sedation should be considered to be subcategories of palliative sedation therapy, and we recommend that researchers define the degree of sedation, duration, pharmacological properties of medications, target symptoms, and target populations in future studies. This clarification of terminology will contribute to improving the accuracy and depth of sedation research.

Practical guide to palliative sedation

Terminally ill patients want assurance that their symptoms will be controlled as death approaches. Most patients can have a peaceful death with standard palliative care. Some patients approaching death, however, have refractory symptoms such as pain, dyspnea, nausea, and agitated delirium. Palliative sedation (PS), the use of medications to induce sedation in order to control refractory symptoms near death, is a therapeutic option for these patients. The reported frequency of PS use varies greatly, ranging from 5% to 52% of the terminally ill. One concern with PS is its effect on survival. Data suggest that PS does not lead to immediate death, with the median time to death after initiating PS being greater than 1 to 5 days. A number of medications have been used for PS, but midazolam is most commonly reported. PS is distinct from euthanasia because the intent of PS is relief from suffering without death as a required outcome.

Palliative sedation therapy: a review of definitions and usage

Palliative care clinicians are faced with the challenge of managing a multitude of complex symptom combinations in patients for whom they care. Although many symptoms respond favourably to established protocols, others may remain refractory to such intervention. It is within the context of trying to manage such symptoms that the issue of palliative sedation therapy arises. The use of sedation in such circumstances is one that has prompted considerable debate in the palliative care literature. Discourse has been hampered, however, by a lack of consensus regarding the meaning and intent of palliative sedation therapy, when it should be used clinically and how it is to be achieved pharmacologically. There is a dearth of research examining the meanings ascribed to its use from the perspective of patients, families, and health-care providers. This article will provide an overview of these identified issues, and provide suggestions for ways in which palliative sedation therapy might further be examined and understood.

Practices and attitudes of Japanese oncologists and palliative care physicians concerning terminal sedation: a nationwide survey

PURPOSE

To clarify the frequency of practice of sedation therapy for terminally ill cancer patients and to identify physicians' attitudes toward sedation.

METHODS

Questionnaires were mailed to 1,436 Japanese oncologists and palliative care physicians with a request to report their practice of and attitudes toward palliative sedation therapy.

RESULTS

A total of 697 physicians returned questionnaires (response rate, 49.6%). Use of mild, intermittent-deep, or continuous-deep sedation for physical and psychologic distress was reported by 89% and 64%, 70% and 46%, and 66% and 38%, respectively. In vignettes in which physicians were asked whether they would use sedation for a patient with refractory dyspnea or with existential distress, 14% and 15%, respectively, chose continuous-deep sedation as a strong possibility. Those physicians less confident with psychologic care and with higher levels of professional burnout were more likely to choose continuous-deep sedation. In vignettes in which they were asked whether they use sedation for a patient with depression or delirium, 39% and 31%, respectively, considered psychiatric treatment to be a strong possibility, and 42% and 50% regarded continuous-deep sedation as a potential treatment option. Physicians less involved in caring for the terminally ill and less specialized in palliative medicine were significantly less likely to choose psychiatric treatment.

CONCLUSION

Sedation is frequently used for severe physical and psychologic distress of cancer patients. Physicians' clinical experiences with the terminally ill and their levels of professional burnout influence the decisions. Training and education for physicians in regard to end-of-life care and valid clinical guidelines for palliative sedation therapy are necessary.

Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in Scandinavia--with a conceptual suggestion regarding international research in relation to the phenomena

This article analyses and compares recent research on Scandinavian physicians' attitudes towards, as well as their practice of, euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. The studies discussed are quite dissimilar in their design, resulting in considerable difficulties as far as comparability is concerned. Such difficulties are common in these fields of research. As an intended contribution to the amendment of future research, we suggest what we take to be detailed and precise definitions of the terms euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide for use internationally. Our definitions, or interpretations, basically draw on the Dutch experience and understanding of these terms. The Dutch approach implies that acts of abstention from life-prolonging treatment, i.e., withholding and withdrawing treatment, and pain and symptom treatment that theoretically could shorten life (including terminal sedation) are to be considered 'normal medical practice'. Furthermore, death is seen as having natural causes in all of these acts. That, however, is not the case with euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. When a physician performs either of these acts, he or she is required to state 'unnatural death' in the patient's death certificate. Our conceptual suggestions do not address the ethical status of the various medical decisions that are made with regard to the death of patients; our aim is conceptual clarity only. As far as euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in Scandinavia is concerned, even though comparisons prove difficult, we do think some observations may be made: physicians from Norway, Denmark and Sweden display differences in both attitude and practice concerning these phenomena. Norwegian physicians are most restrictive with regard to attitude. Danish and Swedish physicians display a more liberal attitude, the latter being the most liberal. These findings did not fit the physicians' practice. Danish physicians have performed euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide more often than Norwegian physicians. Swedish physicians, even though they are the most liberal when it comes to attitude, appear never to have performed euthanasia and very seldom physician-assisted suicide.

Synthesis of research and evidence on factors affecting the desire of terminally ill or seriously chronically ill persons to hasten death

Review of empirical studies indicates that suicide is more common in persons suffering from some physical illnesses (e.g., epilepsy, head injuries, Huntington's Chorea, gastrointestinal diseases, AIDS, and cancer), but other chronic diseases and disabilities have not been linked to increased suicide risk (e.g., blindness, senile dementia, multiple sclerosis, and other physical handicaps). The timing of increased suicide risk varies in different illnesses from early presymptomatic stages to the terminal phase. Difficulties in reliably determining when someone is “terminally ill” and problems of the competence of persons with a poor prognosis complicate empirical investigations of euthanasia, assisted suicide, and the desire to hasten death. The role of family and caregivers in end of life decisions needs further clarification. Researchers have found that pain and suffering and quality of life variables may be linked to the desire to die prematurely, particularly in cancer patients. Others find that clinical depression is a major factor. But, since depression is often present, we do not know why a small minority of depressed patients desire and choose to hasten death. Support for alternative hypotheses is examined, including the role of pre-morbid suicidality and depression, individual differences in coping strategies and indirect consequences of the illness. There is a need to clarify links between attitudes, which is the major variable studied, and actual behaviors and decisions. Furthermore, we need theoretical and empirical links between studies of suicide, which is linked to clinical depression and characterized by ambivalence and studies of euthanasia, which is often depicted as rational and with little ambivalence. Evaluative research should be conducted to determine if interventions to reduce the desire for a premature death by suicide, euthanasia, or assisted suicide are effective. In the light of this review, we present several considerations for those involved in proposing changes in public policy concerning euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Symptom assessment and management

This article reviews how to assess and manage several symptoms commonly encountered by neurologists who care for patients with advanced illness. Scientifically validated guidelines are reviewed and practical advice is offered on how to manage pain, nausea and vomiting, dyspnea, and respiratory secretions at the end of life. The role of the neurologist as a provider of end of life care is discussed including suggestions for communicating with patients and families. This article concludes with a review of when sedation may be offered within the purview of good palliative care to patients who are imminently dying.

Pain Management Rather Than Assisted Suicide: The Ethical High Ground

Physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia (PAS/E) have been outside the bounds of acceptable behavior for physicians for hundreds of years and remain illegal in all jurisdictions except Oregon and The Netherlands. The morally, legally, and professionally acceptable alternative is excellent end-of-life care. In this article, the arguments in favor of PAS/E are discussed briefly and rebutted. The arguments against this practice are outlined and supported. Because pain (and fear of pain) at the end of life is one of the driving forces behind the recurrent debate about legalization of PAS/E, the medical profession as a whole, and pain specialists in particular, have an obligation to use all available means to relieve pain.

Terminal Sedation: Ethical Implications in Different Situations

Terminal sedation (TS) is a recently coined term that may apply to a variety of practices with differing ethical implications. Two hypothetical cases are presented and contrasted. The first presents the more common scenario in which sedation is used for severe distress in a patient very close to death, who has stopped eating and drinking. The second case is more problematic: a nonterminally ill spinal cord injury patient requests sedation because of psychic distress. Sedation is supported in the former, but not the latter case. Suggested principles guiding the ethical use of sedation are: (1) While respect for autonomy is important, we are not obliged under all circumstances to provide sedation. (2) Physician intent matters. In providing sedation the physician's primary intent should be to alleviate suffering. (3) Reasonable inferences of intent can be made from physician actions, providing safeguards to ensure proper care. Sedatives should be titrated to observable signs of distress. (4) Proximity to death is a more useful concept than terminality in weighing benefits and burdens of sedation. (5) The nature of physician action should depend upon the nature of the suffering. Not all suffering is appropriately treated with sedation. (6) In patients close to death who have already stopped eating and drinking, sedation cannot be said to hasten death through dehydration or starvation. (7) Where TS is otherwise appropriate and where dehydration may in fact hasten death, ethical concerns may be addressed through informed consent. If hydration is refused, TS cannot be considered synonymous with euthanasia.

End-of-life care in the pediatric intensive care unit after the forgoing of life-sustaining treatment

OBJECTIVE

To describe the attitudes and practice of clinicians in providing sedation and analgesia to dying patients as life-sustaining treatment is withdrawn.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective case series of 53 consecutive patients who died after the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment in the pediatric intensive care unit at three teaching hospitals in Boston. Data on the reasons why medications were given were obtained from a self-administered anonymous questionnaire completed by the critical care physician and nurse for each case. Data on what medications were given were obtained from a review of the medical record.

RESULTS

Sedatives and/or analgesics were administered to 47 (89%) patients who died after the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. Patients who were comatose were less likely to receive these medications. Physicians and nurses cited treatment of pain, anxiety, and air hunger as the most common reasons, and hastening death as the least common reason, for administration of these medications. Hastening death was viewed as an "acceptable, unintended side effect" of terminal care by 91% of physician-nurse matched pairs. The mean dose of sedatives and analgesics administered nearly doubled as life-support was withdrawn, and the degree of escalation in dose did not correlate with clinician's views on hastening death.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians frequently escalate the dose of sedatives or analgesics to dying patients as life-sustaining treatment is withdrawn, citing patient-centered reasons as their principle justification. Hastening death is seen as an unintended consequence of appropriate care. A large majority of physicians and nurses agreed with patient management and were satisfied with the care provided. Care of the dying patient after the forgoing of life-sustaining treatment remains underanalyzed and needs more rigorous examination by the critical care community.

A multicentre international study of sedation for uncontrolled symptoms in terminally ill patients

The issue of symptom management at the end of life and the need to use sedation has become a controversial topic. This debate has been intensified by the suggestion that sedation may correlate with 'slow euthanasia'. The need to have more facts and less anecdote was a motivating factor in this multicentre study. Four palliative care programmes in Israel, South Africa, and Spain agreed to participate. The target population was palliative care patients in an inpatient setting. Information was collected on demographics, major symptom distress, and intent and need to use sedatives in the last week of life. Further data on level of consciousness, adequacy of symptom control, and opioids and psychotropic agents used during the final week of life was recorded. As the final week of life can be difficult to predict, treating physicians were asked to complete the data at the time of death. The data available for analysis included 100 patients each from Israel and Madrid, 94 patients from Durban, and 93 patients from Cape Town. More than 90% of patients required medical management for pain, dyspnoea, delirium and/or nausea in the final week of life. The intent to sedate varied from 15% to 36%, with delirium being the most common problem requiring sedation. There were variations in the need to sedate patients for dyspnoea, and existential and family distress. Midazolam was the most common medication prescribed to achieve sedation. The diversity in symptom distress, intent to sedate and use of sedatives, provides further knowledge in characterizing and describing the use of deliberate pharmacological sedation for problematic symptoms at the end of life. The international nature of the patient population studied enhances our understanding of potential differences in definition of symptom issues, variation of clinical practice, and cultural and psychosocial influences.

Terminal sedation for existential distress

Although sedation for existential distress has been actively discussed in the palliative care literature, empirical reports are limited. A retrospective cohort study was performed to clarify the physical conditions of terminally ill cancer patients who expressed existential distress and received sedation. Of 248 consecutive hospice inpatients, 20 patients expressed a belief that their lives were meaningless and received sedation. The target symptoms for sedation were dyspnea (n = 10), agitated delirium (n = 8), and pain (n = 1). Only one patient received sedation for psychological distress alone, although physical symptoms were acceptably relieved. The Palliative Performance Scale just before sedation was 10 (n = 7), 20 (n = 11), 30(n = 1), and 40(n = 1). All but one patient could take nourishment orally of only mouthfuls or less. Edema, dyspnea at rest, and delirium were observed in 10, 13, and 14 cases, respectively. The Palliative Prognostic Index was greater than 6.0 in all but one case with a mean of 12 +/- 3.3. In conclusion, in our practice, sedation was principally performed for physical symptoms of cancer patients in very late stages. Further research is encouraged to establish standard therapy for existential distress of the terminally ill.

Palliative treatments of last resort: choosing the least harmful alternative. University of Pennsylvania Center for Bioethics Assisted Suicide Consensus Panel

Comprehensive palliative care, as exemplified by many state-of-the-art hospice programs, is the standard of care for the dying. Although palliative care is very effective, physicians, nurses, patients, families, and loved ones regularly face clinically, ethically, legally, and morally challenging decisions throughout the dying process. This is especially true when terminally ill patients are ready to die in the face of complex, difficult-to-treat suffering and request assistance from their health care providers. Although physician-assisted suicide has received the most attention as a potential last-resort response, this practice remains illegal in the United States except in Oregon, and even there it is relatively infrequent. More commonly, decisions are made about accelerating opioid therapy for pain, foregoing life-sustaining therapy, voluntarily stopping eating and drinking, and administering terminal sedation in response to unacceptable suffering. The moral distinctions between these practices are critical to some but relatively inconsequential to others. This paper illustrates, through summaries of real clinical cases, how each of these practices might be used in response to patients in particular clinical circumstances, keeping in focus the patient's values as well as those of families, other loved ones, and health care providers. The challenge is to find the least harmful solution to the patient's problem without abandoning patients and their loved ones to unacceptable suffering or to acting in a more deleterious way on their own.

The Double Effect of Pain Medication: Separating Myth from Reality

The principle of double effect is used to justify the administration of medication to relieve pain even though it may lead to the unintended, although foreseen, consequence of hastening death by causing respiratory depression. Although a review of the medical literature reveals that the risk of respiratory depression from opioid analgesic is more myth than fact and that there is little evidence that the use of medication to control pain hastens death, the belief in the double effect of pain medication remains widespread. Applying the principle of double effect to end-of-life issues perpetuates this myth and results in the undertreatment of physical suffering at the end of life. The concept of double effect of opioids also has been used in support of legalization of physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia.

Sedation for uncontrolled symptoms in a South African hospice

The need to sedate terminally ill patients for uncontrolled symptoms has been previously documented in a few reports. A retrospective consecutive chart review was undertaken at a hospice in Cape Town, South Africa, to develop an understanding of the local experience and assess the potential for improved patient management. Twenty-three of seventy-six (30%) patients received sedating therapies: twenty patients for delirium, two patients for delirium and dyspnea, and one patient for dyspnea alone. Fourteen patients were sedated with a continuous subcutaneous infusion of midazolam, seven patients with intermittent doses of benzodiazepines, and two patients with chlorpromazine and lorazepam. The mean midazolam dose was 29 mg per day (median 30 mg; range 15-60 mg per day). Patients were sedated on average 2.5 days before death (median 1 day; range 4 hours-12 days). The mean equivalent daily dose of parenteral morphine in the last week of life showed a significantly higher mean for the sedated group, as compared to the nonsedated group. There was minimal investigation of reversible causes for delirium, none of the patients underwent an opioid rotation, and the opioid dose was seldom decreased. None of the patients received parenteral hydration. The prevalence for the use of sedating treatment is consistent with the range of other literature reports. Nevertheless, the wide disparity in the reported prevalence of these problems, and the ethical concerns raised by the relative frequency of this sedative approach, cannot be ignored.

Sedation for intractable distress in the dying--a survey of experts

Terminal sedation is a phrase that has appeared in the palliative care literature in the last few years. There has not been a clear definition proposed for this term, nor has there been any agreement on the frequency with which the technique is used. A postal survey of 61 selected palliative care experts (59 physicians, two nurses) was carried out to examine their response to a proposed definition for 'terminal sedation', to estimate the frequency of this practice and the reasons for its use, to identify the drugs and dosages used, to determine the outcome, and to explore the decision-making process. Opinions on physician-assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia were also sought. Eighty-seven per cent of the experts responded from eight countries, although predominantly from Canada and the United Kingdom. Forty per cent agreed unequivocally with the proposed definition, while 4% disagreed completely. Eighty-nine per cent agreed that 'terminal sedation' is sometimes necessary and 77% reported using it in the last 12 months--over half of these for up to four patients. Reasons for using this method included various physical and psychological symptoms. The most common drugs used were midazolam and methotrimeprazine. Decision making usually involved the patient or family, and varied with respect to the ease with which the decision was made. The use of sedation was perceived to be successful in 90 out of 100 patients recalled. Ninety per cent of respondents did not support legalization of euthanasia. In conclusion, sedating agents are used by palliative care experts as tools for the management of symptoms. The term 'terminal sedation' should be abandoned and replaced with the phrase 'sedation for intractable distress in the dying'. Further research into the management of intractable symptoms and suffering is warranted.

Nontreatment and aggressive narcotic therapy among hospitalized pancreatic cancer patients

OBJECTIVES

Strong feelings about patient autonomy as expressed in living wills, polls, and legislative referenda have been challenging the medical establishment to increase nontreatment, defined as foregoing a life-prolonging treatment, and even to provide treatments having life-shortening potential to selected patients. Because there are little data about the actual practice of these procedures, including aggressive narcotic therapy as defined herein, we studied the terminal management of 417 pancreatic cancer patients.

DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS

The medical records of 417 residents of King County, Washington, who died of pancreatic cancer in the time periods 1959-1962, 1969-1972, and 1985-1990, were reviewed to study the frequency of, and risk factors for, end-of-life nontreatment decisions and aggressive narcotic therapy decisions, defined here as the decision to administer treatment doses of narcotics or major sedatives to already comatose patients within 4 hours of death.

RESULTS

Antibiotics were not provided to 71% of the 70 febrile patients (two readings >38.33-38.83 degrees C or one reading of 38.88 degrees C), intravenous fluid was not provided to 43% of 294 dehydrated patients (oral intake <500 mL/24 hours), transfusions were not provided to 39% of 57 severely anemic patients (hematocrit <20%), and laparotomy was not performed for 86% of 36 patients with abdominal emergencies (obstruction, bleeding, dehiscence). Also, 46% of the 118 patients who were comatose for at least 24 hours before death received aggressive narcotic therapy, as defined above. A total of 335 of the 417 patients had documentation of at least one of the above life-threatening conditions or were comatose for at least 24 hours before death, and 289 (86%) of these patients experienced nontreatment of one or more of these conditions or received aggressive narcotic therapy. Nontreatment decisions for febrile, dehydrated, or anemic patients tended to be more frequent if the patient was comatose (P=.004, .010, and .065, respectively), if there was a nontreatment statement in the medical record (P=.009, .035, and .001, respectively), or if the patient was described as terminal (P=.262, .029, and .002, respectively). Aggressive narcotic therapy in comatose patients was more common among patients who had regular visitors (P=.002), who had pre-coma pain (P=.006), who had nontreatment statements in their charts (P=.031), whose in-charge physician was an oncologist (P < .001), who were treated in a community nonprofit hospital compared with a Catholic hospital (P=.007), or who were treated in recent years (P=.011).

CONCLUSION

Both nontreatment and aggressive narcotic therapy forms of medical management have been occurring commonly in terminal pancreatic cancer patients in King County, Washington, during the past 3 decades, the latter with greater frequency in recent years.