Continuous Sedation Until Death With or Without the Intention to Hasten Death—A Nationwide Study in Nursing Homes in Flanders, Belgium

Could palliative sedation be seen as unnamed euthanasia?: a survey among healthcare professionals in oncology

BACKGROUND

In 2016 a French law created a new right for end-of-life patients: deep and continuous sedation maintained until death, with discontinuation of all treatments sustaining life such as artificial nutrition and hydration. It was totally unprecedented that nutrition and hydration were explicitly defined in France as sustaining life treatments, and remains a specificity of this law. End- of-life practices raise ethical and practical issues, especially in Europe actually. We aimed to know how oncology professionals deal with the law, their opinion and experience and their perception.

METHODS

Online mono-centric survey with closed-ended and open-ended questions in a Cancer Comprehensive Centre was elaborated. It was built during workshops of the ethics committee of the Institute, whose president is an oncologist with a doctoral degree in medical ethics. 58 oncologists and 121 nurses-all professionals of oncological departments -, received it, three times, as mail, with an information letter.

RESULTS

63/ 179 professionals answered the questionnaire (35%). Conducting end-of-life discussions and advanced care planning were reported by 46/63 professionals. In the last three months, 18 doctors and 7 nurses faced a request for a deep and continuous sedation maintained until death, in response to physical or existential refractory suffering. Artificial nutrition and even more hydration were not uniformly considered as treatment. Evaluation of the prognosis, crucial to decide a deep and continuous sedation maintained until death, appears to be very difficult and various, between hours and few weeks. Half of respondents were concerned that this practice could lead to or hide euthanasia practices, whereas for the other half, this new law formalised practices necessary for the quality of palliative care at the end-of-life.

CONCLUSION

Most respondents support the implementation of deep and continuous sedation maintained until death in routine end-of-life care. Nevertheless, difficulty to stop hydration, confusion with euthanasia practices, ethical debates it provokes and the risk of misunderstanding within teams and with families are significant. This is certainly shared by other teams. This could lead to a multi-centric survey and if confirmed might be reported to the legislator.

Pratiques et enjeux de la sédation palliative en Belgique

In Belgium, continuous sedation in palliative care is considered a symptomatic treatment. There is no specific legislation to govern it. Its proper use is based on a set of recommendations that ensure both effective treatment and respect for the patient's preferences, within a rigorous ethical framework.

A qualitative study on continuous deep sedation until death as an alternative to assisted suicide in Switzerland

BACKGROUND

According to the European Association for Palliative Care, decisions regarding palliative sedation should not be made in response to requests for assisted dying, such as euthanasia or assisted suicide. However, several studies show that continuous deep sedation until death (CDSUD) - a particular form of sedation - has been considered as an alternative to these practices in some countries. In Switzerland, where assisted suicide is decriminalized and CDSUD is not legally regulated, no studies have comprehensively investigated their relation. Our study aimed to identify and describe the experience among palliative care physicians of CDSUD as a potential alternative to assisted suicide in the French-speaking part of Switzerland.

METHODS

We performed an exploratory multicentre qualitative study based on interviews with palliative care physicians in the French-speaking part of Switzerland and conducted linguistic and thematic analysis of all interview transcripts. The study is described in accordance with COREQ guidelines.

RESULTS

We included 10 interviews conducted in four palliative care units. Our linguistic analysis shows four main types of sedation, which we called 'rapid CDSUD', 'gradual CDSUD', 'temporary sedation' and 'intermittent sedation'. CDSUD (rapid or gradual) was not considered an alternative to assisted suicide, even if a single situation has been reported. In contrast, 'temporary' or 'intermittent sedation', although not medically indicated, was sometimes introduced in response to a request for assisted suicide. This was the fact when there were barriers to an assisted suicide at home (e.g., when transfer home was impossible or the patient wished not to burden the family).

CONCLUSION

These preliminary results can guide clinical, ethical, linguistic and legal reflection in this field and be used to explore this question more deeply at the national and international levels in a comparative, interdisciplinary and multiprofessional approach. They can also be useful to update Swiss clinical guidelines on palliative sedation in order to include specific frameworks on various sedation protocols and sedation as an alternative to assisted suicide. Potential negative impacts of considering palliative sedation as an alternative to assisted suicide should be nuanced by open and honest societal debate.

The practices and attitudes of nurses regarding palliative sedation: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Palliative sedation is used as a last-resort option to treat refractory symptoms of dying patients. Nurses are important participants in the process of sedation. However, little is known about palliative sedation from a nursing perspective.

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the practices and attitudes of nurses concerning palliative sedation.

DATA SOURCES AND REVIEW METHODS

A scoping review guided by Arksey and O`Malley`s methodological framework was used to analyze existing peer-reviewed empirical research on the topic of the practices and attitudes of nurses related to the palliative sedation of patients aged 18 years and older. Of the 316 publications identified from the PubMed, CINAHL and Cochrane Library, 17 full-text articles were included in this review. The data of the included articles were charted (author(s), year of publication, country, objectives, study design, data collection, setting, respondents, definition of palliative sedation, focus of the study and key findings), and the results were summarized with inductive content analysis. The PRISMA-ScR checklist was used as a guideline for the reporting in this review.

RESULTS

During the decision-making concerning the start of palliative sedation, nurses usually have an advocatory and supportive role, although the role varies between different countries. This role then changes to a relatively independent performance of sedation; including administration of the medication, monitoring the effectiveness of sedation, and in some cases taking decisions concerning the medication and dosage policy. Further, nurses provide information and compassionate care to both the patient and the family during the process of palliative sedation. Most nurses view palliative sedation as a positive and sometimes necessary last resort therapy to relieve refractory suffering of dying patients. However, sedation poses ethical problems for many nurses. These problems especially concern the essential elements of deciding to use palliative sedation, the depth of sedation, the potential for shortening life, and the loss of social interaction.

CONCLUSIONS

Nurses play a key role in palliative sedation, as they often perform sedation independently and have important information about the needs and wishes of both patients and their families due to their unique position at the bedside of the patient. Although nurses generally see palliative sedation as a positive practice for selected patients, many of them feel it is ethically controversial. This scoping review reveals a great need for further research and discussion on the practices and attitudes of nurses regarding palliative sedation.

Sedatives and Sedation at the End of Life in Nursing Homes: A Retrospective Multicenter Cohort Study

OBJECTIVES

There is scarce information about sedation in nursing homes at the end of life. We aimed to assess (1) the use of sedatives generally and "sedatives with continuous effect," based on objective operational criteria, within the last week of life in nursing homes and (2) factors associated with this treatment.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study, using the nursing homes' medical records.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Residents who died in 4 German nursing homes from January 2015 to December 2017 and whose medical records were available (n = 512).

METHODS

Sedatives analyzed were those recommended by guidelines for "palliative sedation": benzodiazepines, levomepromazine, haloperidol (≥5 mg/d), and propofol. The definition of "sedatives with continuous effect" and doses judged as at least moderately sedating were consented by palliative care clinicians and pharmacists, based on the literature. Descriptive statistics and multivariate logistic regression analysis were performed (R version 3.6.1).

RESULTS

Overall, 110/512 (21%) deceased residents received a sedative at least once during the last week of life, 46/512 (9%) "sedatives with continuous effect." Oral lorazepam was used most frequently. Eleven of 512 (2%) residents received doses judged as at least moderately sedating. The term sedation was not used. Most frequent indications were agitation (58/110; 53%) and anxiety (35/110; 32%); no indication was noted for 36/110 (33%) residents. The resident's involvement in the decision for sedatives was documented in 3/110 (3%). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed significant associations between use of sedatives and age (OR = 0.94, P < .001) as well as institution (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Our data indicate a lower prevalence of sedation compared to international data and considerable differences regarding prevalence between institutions. These differences, potential setting-specific challenges, and need for support measures for consistent best practice of sedation in nursing homes should be further explored.

Nonconsensual withdrawal of nutrition and hydration in prolonged disorders of consciousness: authoritarianism and trustworthiness in medicine

The Royal College of Physicians of London published the 2013 national clinical guidelines on prolonged disorders of consciousness (PDOC) in vegetative and minimally conscious states. The guidelines acknowledge the rapidly advancing neuroscientific research and evolving therapeutic modalities in PDOC. However, the guidelines state that end-of-life decisions should be made for patients who do not improve with neurorehabilitation within a finite period, and they recommend withdrawal of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH). This withdrawal is deemed necessary because patients in PDOC can survive for years with continuation of CANH, even when a ceiling on medical care has been imposed, i.e., withholding new treatment such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation for acute life-threatening illness. The end-of-life care pathway is centered on a staged escalation of medications, including sedatives, opioids, barbiturates, and general anesthesia, concurrent with withdrawal of CANH. Agitation and distress may last from several days to weeks because of the slow dying process from starvation and dehydration. The potential problems of this end-of-life care pathway are similar to those of the Liverpool Care Pathway. After an independent review in 2013, the Department of Health discontinued the Liverpool Care pathway in England. The guidelines assert that clinicians, supported by court decisions, have become the final authority in nonconsensual withdrawal of CANH on the basis of "best interests" rationale. We posit that these guidelines lack high-quality evidence supporting: 1) treatment futility of CANH, 2) reliability of distress assessment from starvation and dehydration, 3) efficacy of pharmacologic control of this distress, and 4) proximate causation of death. Finally, we express concerns about the utilitarian-based assessment of what constitutes a person's best interests. We are disturbed by the level and the role of medical authoritarianism institutionalized by these national guidelines when deciding on the worthiness of life in PDOC. We conclude that these guidelines are not only harmful to patients and families, but they represent the means of nonconsensual euthanasia. The latter would constitute a gross violation of the public's trust in the integrity of the medical profession.