Attitudes of undergraduate medical students towards end-of-life decisions: a systematic review of influencing factors

BACKGROUND

Medical end-of-life decisions, including voluntary active euthanasia (lethal injection), (physician-)assisted dying (prescribing lethal substances), passive euthanasia (refraining from or ceasing life-sustaining treatments), palliative sedation (administering sedatives to alleviate suffering, possibly leading to unintended life-shortening), and treatment withdrawal/withholding, have become prevalent in modern medical practice.

AIM

This systematic review aims to analyse international data on undergraduate medical students' attitudes towards (physician-) assisted dying, palliative sedation, treatment withdrawal/withholding, active and passive euthanasia. The objectives are to assess approval rates over the past 24 years and to identify factors influencing these attitudes.

DESIGN

In accordance with PRISMA guidelines, a systematic search of six electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, ERIC, PsycINFO, and Web of Science) was conducted. The review encompasses studies from 2000-2024.

RESULTS

Forty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria (43 surveys, 6 qualitative studies, 1 mixed-method study). The studies were globally distributed: Europe (27), Asia (10), America (8), Africa (3), and Australia (1). Predictors such as age, clinical vs. pre-clinical status, religious aspects, sex, and ethnicity were investigated. Age and gender had limited influence, whereas religion was a significant factor. Compared with pre-clinical students, clinical students showed more support for end-of-life practices. Geographic locations and socioeconomic status also affect attitudes.

CONCLUSION

Medical students' attitudes towards end-of-life decisions are influenced by clinical experience, religious beliefs, and geographic location. The acceptance rates for euthanasia and (physician-)assisted dying vary significantly across regions, reflecting diverse cultural and educational backgrounds.

Intentions at the End of Life: Continuous Deep Sedation and France's Claeys-Leonetti law

In 2016, France passed a major law that is unique in giving terminally ill and suffering patients the right to the controversial procedure of continuous deep sedation until death (CDS). In so doing, the law identifies CDS as a sui generis clinical practice, distinct from other forms of palliative sedation therapy, as well as from euthanasia. As such, it reconfigures the ethical debate over CDS in interesting ways. This paper addresses one aspect of this reconfiguration and its implications for the intentions at work in this complex time at the end of life. The concept of intention is often considered central to the ethics of end-of-life care, but its role is recognized to be problematic, with charges of elusiveness and ambiguity. I aim to show that consideration of the French law affords a new understanding of the intentionality of CDS, and that in addition to the obvious importance of this for clarifying the ethics of the practice, it may suggest new ways of addressing the wider problem of ambiguous clinical intentions at end of life.

Should continuous deep sedation until death be legally regulated in Switzerland? An exploratory study with palliative care physicians

Background

In Switzerland, continuous deep sedation until death (CDSUD) is not legally regulated and the current clinical practice guidelines on palliative sedation from 2005 do not refer to it. In contrast, in France, a neighbouring country, CDSUD is regulated by a specific law and professional guidelines. International studies show that in culturally polymorphic countries, there are variations in the end-of-life practices between linguistic regions and that a linguistic region shares many cultural characteristics with the neighbouring country.

Objectives

This study aimed to explore the attitudes of palliative care physicians from the French-speaking part of Switzerland on the question of whether CDSUD should be legally regulated in the country, and to identify their arguments. Our study also aimed to assess whether a hypothetical Swiss law on CDSUD should be similar to the current legal regulation of this practice in France.

Design

We conducted a multicentre exploratory qualitative study based on face-to-face interviews with palliative care physicians in the French-speaking part of Switzerland.

Methods

We analysed the interview transcripts using thematic analysis, combining deductive and inductive coding.

Results

Most of the participants were opposed to having specific legal regulation of CDSUD in Switzerland. Their arguments were diverse: some focused on medical and epistemological aspects of CDSUD, whereas others emphasized the legal inconvenience of having such regulation. None had the opinion that, if CDSUD were legally regulated in Switzerland, the regulation should be similar to that in France.

Conclusion

This study allows to better understand why palliative care physicians in French-speaking Switzerland may be reluctant to have legal regulation of CDSUD. Further studies covering the whole country would be needed to gain a more complete picture of Swiss palliative care physicians on this question.

Ethical considerations in the relief of cancer pain

The management of pain for patients with cancer and cancer survivors is a critical clinical task that involves a multitude of ethical issues at almost every phase of the cancer experience. This review is divided into three sections: In the first, we address rights and duties in the relief of pain from the perspective of patients, clinicians, health care institutions and organizations, and public policy. This section includes a detailed description of issues and duties in relation to opioid misuse and addiction. In the second section, we discuss the ethical consideration of therapeutic planning. The final section addresses ethical considerations in the management of pain at the end of life including a detailed discussion regarding ethical issues relating to the use of palliative sedation as a clinical intervention of last resort.

Getting Real About Killing and Allowing to Die: A Critical Discussion of the Literature

The moral significance of the distinction between killing and allowing to die has played a key role in debates about euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. Since the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment is held as morally permissible in the medical community, it follows that if there is no morally significant difference between killing and allowing to die, then there is no morally significant difference between withdrawing life-sustaining treatment or administering a lethal injection to end a patient’s life. Consistency then requires that voluntary active euthanasia (VAE) is also morally permissible. The debates over whether the distinction is morally significant have carried on for decades with little hope of consensus. We begin by surveying the literature to identify common argumentative strategies used in defending or rejecting the distinction’s significance. We observe, based on our review, that many of these strategies operate in ways that are conceptually removed from the concrete clinical situation of physicians involved in practices that lead to patient death (by withdrawal of treatment or VAE). We conclude by arguing for a novel way of moving the debate forward indicated by our reading of the literature, namely, by paying careful attention to the moral experience of physicians involved in end-of-life interventions to understand how they experience these practices. Exploring physician experience can reveal how the distinction may or may not be useful for moral deliberation and can provide the needed context to theorize about the distinction in a more empirically informed and practically useful way.

British laypeople's attitudes towards gradual sedation, sedation to unconsciousness and euthanasia at the end of life

BACKGROUND

Many patients at the end of life require analgesia to relieve pain. Additionally, up to 1/5 of patients in the UK receive sedation for refractory symptoms at the end of life. The use of sedation in end-of-life care (EOLC) remains controversial. While gradual sedation to alleviate intractable suffering is generally accepted, there is more opposition towards deliberate and rapid sedation to unconsciousness (so-called "terminal anaesthesia", TA). However, the general public's views about sedation in EOLC are not known. We sought to investigate the general public's views to inform policy and practice in the UK.

METHODS

We performed two anonymous online surveys of members of the UK public, sampled to be representative for key demographic characteristics (n = 509). Participants were given a scenario of a hypothetical terminally ill patient with one week of life left. We sought views on the acceptability of providing titrated analgesia, gradual sedation, terminal anaesthesia, and euthanasia. We asked participants about the intentions of doctors, what risks of sedation would be acceptable, and the equivalence of terminal anaesthesia and euthanasia.

FINDINGS

Of the 509 total participants, 84% and 72% indicated that it is permissible to offer titrated analgesia and gradual sedation (respectively); 75% believed it is ethical to offer TA. Eighty-eight percent of participants indicated that they would like to have the option of TA available in their EOLC (compared with 79% for euthanasia); 64% indicated that they would potentially wish for TA at the end of life (52% for euthanasia). Two-thirds indicated that doctors should be allowed to make a dying patient completely unconscious. More than 50% of participants believed that TA and euthanasia were non-equivalent; a third believed they were.

INTERPRETATION

These novel findings demonstrate substantial support from the UK general public for the use of sedation and TA in EOLC. More discussion is needed about the range of options that should be offered for dying patients.

« Sédation » ou « pratiques sédatives à visée palliative en fin de vie » ? Une étude linguistique des recommandations francophones en matière de sédation en soins palliatifs chez l’adulte

Introduction : Despite the number and importance of French-language guidelines related to palliative sedation for adults, these texts have never been the subject of a linguistic analysis.Objectives : This study aimed to explore and analyze the terms used for sedation and their definitions in Belgian, French, Quebec, and Swiss guidelines.Methods : Current documents were subjected to textual, terminological, and conceptual analysis.Results : Belgian, Quebec, and Swiss guidelines use the same term to refer to sedation, without, however, conceptualizing it in a consistent way. By contrast, guidelines developed in France use various terms but define sedation in a similar (but not identical) way. Cultural specificities linked to end-of-life legislation in those countries and region were identified as a potential causal factor.Discussion and conclusion : The diversity of terms and definitions inevitably reinforces the imprecision of the medical language, and the terminology in particular. This is likely to have a negative impact on communication between healthcare professionals, patients, and their families. Efforts should be made to homogenize the terminology and definitions used in guidelines.

Association Between Danish Physicians' Religiosity and Spirituality and Their Attitudes Toward End-of-Life Procedures

Several studies in different countries have investigated the influence of physician characteristics (such as ethnicity, gender and personal values) on attitudes in end-of-life (EOL) decision-making. While patients and relatives formally decide about issues related to EOL, the physician often ends up with a pivotal role in the decision-making process. Consequently, the influence of the personal beliefs and values of physicians on decisions in EOL care is central in the clinical encounter. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the religious and spiritual characteristics of Danish physicians are associated with their attitudes toward certain EOL decisions, particularly concerning euthanasia (E), physician-assisted suicide (PAS), sedation into unconsciousness in dying patients (SUDP), and withdrawal of life support. The study is based on a questionnaire that was mailed to 1485 physicians in the Region of Southern Denmark. We found that being more religious meant being more likely to object to E/PAS, with gender also being a significant factor, in that females were more likely to object to E/PAS than males. Being more religious also meant being more likely to object to SUDP. In a medical practice, revolving around patient-centered care, and often linked with ideals of value neutrality, it is important to gain an understanding of the influences of personal values of physicians on attitudes toward several areas of clinical decision-making. This study contributes to the knowledge of, and possible reflections upon, the impact of physicians' personal beliefs and values on their attitudes toward important decisions in their patients' lives.

Death without distress? The taboo of suffering in palliative care

Palliative care (PC) names as one of its central aims to prevent and relieve suffering. Following the concept of "total pain", which was first introduced by Cicely Saunders, PC not only focuses on the physical dimension of pain but also addresses the patient's psychological, social, and spiritual suffering. However, the goal to relieve suffering can paradoxically lead to a taboo of suffering and imply adverse consequences. Two scenarios are presented: First, PC providers sometimes might fail their own ambitions. If all other means prove ineffective terminal sedation can still be applied as a last resort, though. However, it may be asked whether sedating a dying patient comes close to eliminating suffering by eliminating the sufferer and hereby resembles physician-assisted suicide (PAS), or euthanasia. As an alternative, PC providers could continue treatment, even if it so far prove unsuccessful. In that case, either futility results or the patient might even suffer from the perpetuated, albeit fruitless interventions. Second, some patients possibly prefer to endure suffering instead of being relieved from it. Hence, they want to forgo the various bio-psycho-socio-spiritual interventions. PC providers' efforts then lead to paradoxical consequences: Feeling harassed by PC, patients could suffer even more and not less. In both scenarios, suffering is placed under a taboo and is thereby conceptualised as not being tolerable in general. However, to consider suffering essentially unbearable might promote assisted dying not only on an individual but also on a societal level insofar as unbearable suffering is considered a criterion for euthanasia or PAS.

Ethics of crisis sedation: questions of performance and consent

This paper focuses on the practice of injecting patients who are dying with a relatively high dose of sedatives in response to a catastrophic event that will shortly precipitate death, something that we term 'crisis sedation.' We first present a confabulated case that illustrates the kind of events we have in mind, before offering a more detailed account of the practice. We then comment on some of the ethical issues that crisis sedation might raise. We identify the primary value of crisis sedation as allowing healthcare professionals to provide some degree of reassurance to patients, their families and the professionals who are caring for them. Next we focus on the issue of informed consent. Finally, we ask whether continuous deep sedation might be preferable to crisis sedation in scenarios where potential catastrophic events can be anticipated.

Palliative Care for Children with Central Nervous System Malignancies

Children with central nervous system (CNS) malignancies often suffer from high symptom burden and risk of death. Pediatric palliative care is a medical specialty, provided by an interdisciplinary team, which focuses on enhancing quality of life and minimizing suffering for children with life-threatening or life-limiting disease, and their families. Primary palliative care skills, which include basic symptom management, facilitation of goals-of-care discussions, and transition to hospice, can and should be developed by all providers of neuro-oncology care. This chapter will review the fundamentals of providing primary pediatric palliative care.

The last low whispers of our dead: when is it ethically justifiable to render a patient unconscious until death?

A number of practices at the end of life can causally contribute to diminished consciousness in dying patients. Despite overlapping meanings and a confusing plethora of names in the published literature, this article distinguishes three types of clinically and ethically distinct practices: (1) double-effect sedation, (2) parsimonious direct sedation, and (3) sedation to unconsciousness and death. After exploring the concept of suffering, the value of consciousness, the philosophy of therapy, the ethical importance of intention, and the rule of double effect, these three practices are defined clearly and evaluated ethically. It is concluded that, if one is opposed to euthanasia and assisted suicide, double-effect sedation can frequently be ethically justified, that parsimonious direct sedation can be ethically justified only in extremely rare circumstances in which symptoms have already completely consumed the patient's consciousness, and that sedation to unconsciousness and death is never justifiable. The special case of sedation for existential suffering is also considered and rejected.

The Ethics of Palliative Sedation as a Therapy of Last Resort

Many patients nearing the end of life reach a point at which the goals of care change from an emphasis on prolonging life and optimizing function to maximizing the quality of remaining life, and palliative care becomes a priority. For some patients, however, even high-quality aggressive palliative care fails to provide relief. For patients suffering from severe pain, dyspnea, vomiting, or other symptoms that prove refractory to treatment, there is a consensus that palliative sedation is an appropriate intervention of last resort. In this report, the National Ethics Committee, Veterans Health Administration examines what is meant by palliative sedation, explores ethical concerns about the practice, reviews the emerging professional consensus regarding the use of palliative sedation for managing severe, refractory symptoms at the end of life, and offers specific recommendations for institutional policy.

Controversies surrounding continuous deep sedation at the end of life: the parliamentary and societal debates in France

Background

Continuous deep sedation at the end of life is a practice that has been the topic of considerable ethical debate, for example surrounding its perceived similarity or dissimilarity with physician-assisted dying. The practice is generally considered to be legal as a form of symptom control, although this is mostly only assumed. France has passed an amendment to the Public Health Act that would grant certain terminally ill patients an explicit right to continuous deep sedation until they pass away. Such a framework would be unique in the world.

Discussion

In this paper we will highlight and reflect on four relevant aspects and shortcomings of the proposed bill. First, that the bill suggests that continuous deeps sedation should be considered as a sui generis practice. Second, that it requires that sedation should always be accompanied by the withholding of all artificial nutrition and hydration. In the most recently amended version of the legal proposal it is stated that life sustaining treatments are withheld unless the patient objects. Third, that the French bill would not require that the suffering for which continuous deep sedation is initiated is unbearable. Fourth, the question as to whether the proposal should be considered as a way to avoid having to decriminalise euthanasia and/or PAS or, on the contrary, as a veiled way to decriminalise these practices.

Summary

The French proposal to amend the Public Health Act to include a right to continuous deep sedation for some patients is a unique opportunity to clarify the legality of continuous deep sedation as an end-of-life practice. Moreover, it would recognize that the practice of continuous deep sedation raises ethical and legal issues that are different from those raised by symptom control on the one hand and assisted dying on the other hand. Nevertheless, there are still various issues of significant ethical concern in the French legislative proposal.

How defining clinical practices may influence their evaluation: the case of continuous sedation at the end of life

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Continuous sedation at the end of life is an end-of-life practice that has gained considerable attention in the international literature. Nevertheless, significant confusion persists, even on how to label or define the practice. Several different terms and definitions exist, and these are often non-neutral and indicative of one's normative position on sedation at the end of life. This is problematic for two reasons. First, the use of such value-laden terms or definitions of continuous sedation may make it difficult, if not impossible, to agree on the facts surrounding continuous sedation. Second, including normative criteria in a definition can lead one to make disguised circular or tautological statements.

METHODS

This paper identifies commonly used terms and definitions and demonstrates how particular elements present in these are value-laden and can influence the ethical evaluation of continuous sedation at the end of life.

RESULTS

Two commonly used terms, 'palliative sedation' and 'terminal sedation', have been strongly criticized. We propose to use another, more descriptive term, namely 'continuous sedation at the end of life'. As regards the different definitions of sedation, some are general, but most contain very specific elements, thereby clearly limiting the number of cases that are covered by the definition. Some definitions of sedation include the intention one should (not) have, the possible indications for the practice, and the type of patients the practice should be reserved for.

CONCLUSION

Including value-laden elements in the very definition of a clinical practice runs the risk of pre-empting a proper normative debate about the practice. We explain why this is the case and why it is problematic, and we propose an alternative, descriptive, definition that seeks to avoid these problems.

Continuous deep sedation and homicide: an unsolved problem in law and professional morality

When a severely suffering dying patient is deeply sedated, and this sedated condition is meant to continue until his death, the doctor involved often decides to abstain from artificially administering fluids. For this dual procedure almost all guidelines require that the patient should not have a life expectancy beyond a stipulated maximum of days (4-14). The reason obviously is that in case of a longer life-expectancy the patient may die from dehydration rather than from his lethal illness. But no guideline tells us how we should describe the dual procedure in case of a longer life-expectancy. Many arguments have been advanced why we should not consider it to be a form of homicide, that is, ending the life of the patient (with or without his request). I argue that none of these arguments, taken separately or jointly, is persuasive. When a commission, even one that is not itself life-shortening, foreseeably renders a person unable to undo the life-shortening effects of another, simultaneous omission, the commission and the omission together should be acknowledged to kill her. I discuss the legal and ethical implications of this conclusion.

No Negative Impact of Palliative Sedation on Relatives' Experience of the Dying Phase and Their Wellbeing after the Patient's Death: An Observational Study

Background

Palliative sedation is the widely-used intervention of administering sedating agents to induce a state of unconsciousness to take away a dying patient’s perception of otherwise irrelievable symptoms. However, it remains questionable whether this ethically complex intervention is beneficial for patients and whether the associated lack of communication in the last phase of life has a negative impact on relatives’ wellbeing.

Methods

An observational questionnaire study was conducted among relatives of a consecutive sample of patients who died a non-sudden death in the Erasmus MC Cancer Institute or in the hospice ‘Laurens Cadenza’ (both in Rotterdam) between 2010 and 2013.

Results

Relatives filled in questionnaires regarding 151 patients who had been sedated and 90 patients who had not been sedated. The median time since all patients had passed away was 21 (IQR 14–32) months. No significant differences were found in relatives´ assessments of the quality of end-of-life care, patients´ quality of life in the last week before death and their quality of dying, between patients who did and did not receive sedation, or in relatives’ satisfaction with their own life, their general health and their mental wellbeing after the patient’s death.

Conclusions

The use of sedation in these patients appears to have no negative effect on bereaved relatives’ evaluation of the patient’s dying phase, or on their own wellbeing after the patient’s death.

Contesting the Equivalency of Continuous Sedation until Death and Physician-assisted Suicide/Euthanasia: A Commentary on LiPuma

Patients who are imminently dying sometimes experience symptoms refractory to traditional palliative interventions, and in rare cases, continuous sedation is offered. Samuel H. LiPuma, in a recent article in this Journal, argues that continuous sedation until death is equivalent to physician-assisted suicide/euthanasia based on a higher brain neocortical definition of death. We contest his position that continuous sedation involves killing and offer four objections to the equivalency thesis. First, sedation practices are proportional in a way that physician-assisted suicide/euthanasia is not. Second, continuous sedation may not entirely abolish consciousness. Third, LiPuma's particular version of higher brain neocortical death relies on an implausibly weak construal of irreversibility--a position that is especially problematic in the case of continuous sedation. Finally, we explain why continuous sedation until death is not functionally equivalent to neocortical death and, hence, physician-assisted suicide/euthanasia. Concluding remarks review the differences between these two end-of-life practices.

Attitudes Regarding Palliative Sedation and Death Hastening Among Swiss Physicians: A Contextually Sensitive Approach

In Switzerland, where assisted suicide but not euthanasia is permitted, the authors sought to understand how physicians integrate palliative sedation in their practice and how they reflect on existential suffering and death hastening. They interviewed 31 physicians from different care settings. Five major attitudes emerged. Among specialized palliative care physicians, convinced, cautious and doubtful attitudes were evident. Within unspecialized settings, palliative sedation was more likely to be considered as death hastening: clinicians either avoid it with an inexperienced attitude or practice it with an ambiguous attitude, raising the issue of unskilled and abusive uses of sedatives at the end of life.

Surrogate End-of-Life Care Decision Makers' Postbereavement Grief and Guilt Responses

This article examined differences in familial/friend surrogate decision makers' (N = 93) postbereavement grief and guilt associated with decisions to either prioritize comfort or longevity in determining end-of-life care for decisionally incapacitated adult palliative loved ones. Results demonstrated that participants prioritizing the longevity of loved ones experienced significantly and meaningfully higher levels of grief, complicated grief, and trauma related guilt than those who prioritized comfort.

Palliative pharmacological sedation for terminally ill adults

BACKGROUND

Terminally ill people experience a variety of symptoms in the last hours and days of life, including delirium, agitation, anxiety, terminal restlessness, dyspnoea, pain, vomiting, and psychological and physical distress. In the terminal phase of life, these symptoms may become refractory, and unable to be controlled by supportive and palliative therapies specifically targeted to these symptoms. Palliative sedation therapy is one potential solution to providing relief from these refractory symptoms. Sedation in terminally ill people is intended to provide relief from refractory symptoms that are not controlled by other methods. Sedative drugs such as benzodiazepines are titrated to achieve the desired level of sedation; the level of sedation can be easily maintained and the effect is reversible.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the evidence for the benefit of palliative pharmacological sedation on quality of life, survival, and specific refractory symptoms in terminally ill adults during their last few days of life.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 11), MEDLINE (1946 to November 2014), and EMBASE (1974 to December 2014), using search terms representing the sedative drug names and classes, disease stage, and study designs.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, non-RCTs, and observational studies (e.g. before-and-after, interrupted-time-series) with quantitative outcomes. We excluded studies with only qualitative outcomes or that had no comparison (i.e. no control group or no within-group comparison) (e.g. single arm case series).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts of citations, and full text of potentially eligible studies. Two review authors independently carried out data extraction using standard data extraction forms. A third review author acted as arbiter for both stages. We carried out no meta-analyses due to insufficient data for pooling on any outcome; therefore, we reported outcomes narratively.

MAIN RESULTS

The searches resulted in 14 included studies, involving 4167 adults, of whom 1137 received palliative sedation. More than 95% of people had cancer. No studies were randomised or quasi-randomised. All were consecutive case series, with only three having prospective data collection. Risk of bias was high, due to lack of randomisation. No studies measured quality of life or participant well-being, which was the primary outcome of the review. Five studies measured symptom control, using four different methods, so pooling was not possible. The results demonstrated that despite sedation, delirium and dyspnoea were still troublesome symptoms in these people in the last few days of life. Control of other symptoms appeared to be similar in sedated and non-sedated people. Only one study measured unintended adverse effects of sedative drugs and found no major events; however, four of 70 participants appeared to have drug-induced delirium. The study noticed no respiratory suppression. Thirteen of the 14 studies measured survival time from admission or referral to death, and all demonstrated no statistically significant difference between sedated and non-sedated groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was insufficient evidence about the efficacy of palliative sedation in terms of a person's quality of life or symptom control. There was evidence that palliative sedation did not hasten death, which has been a concern of physicians and families in prescribing this treatment. However, this evidence comes from low quality studies, so should be interpreted with caution. Further studies that specifically measure the efficacy and quality of life in sedated people, compared with non-sedated people, and quantify adverse effects are required.

The use of palliative sedation: A comparison of attitudes of French-speaking physicians from Quebec and Switzerland

OBJECTIVE

Previous literature has suggested that laws and regulations may impact the use of palliative sedation. Our present study compares the attitudes of French-speaking physicians practicing in the Quebec and Swiss environments, where different laws are in place regarding physician-assisted suicide.

METHOD

Data were drawn from two prior studies, one by Blondeau and colleagues and another by Beauverd and coworkers, employing the same two-by-two experimental design with length of prognosis and type of suffering as independent variables. Both the effect of these variables and the effect of their interaction on Swiss and Quebec physicians' attitudes toward sedation were compared. The written comments of respondents were submitted to a qualitative content analysis and summarized in a comparative perspective.

RESULTS

The analysis of variance showed that only the type of suffering had an effect on physicians' attitudes toward sedation. The results of the Wilcoxon test indicated that the attitudes of physicians from Quebec and Switzerland tended to be different for two vignettes: long-term prognosis with existential suffering (p = 0.0577) and short-term prognosis with physical suffering (p = 0.0914). In both cases, the Swiss physicians were less prone to palliative sedation.

SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS

The attitudes of physicians from Quebec and Switzerland toward palliative sedation, particularly regarding prognosis and type of suffering, seem similar. However, the results suggest that physicians from Quebec could be slightly more open to palliative sedation, even though most were not in favor of this practice as an answer to end-of-life existential suffering.

Approaches to suffering at the end of life: the use of sedation in the USA and Netherlands

BACKGROUND

Studies describing physicians' experiences with sedation at the end of life are indispensible for informed palliative care practice, but they are scarce. We describe the accounts of physicians from the USA and the Netherlands, two countries with different regulations on end-of-life decisions regarding their use of sedation.

METHODS

Qualitative face-to-face interviews were held in 2007-2008 with 36 physicians (18 from the Netherlands, 18 from the USA), including primary care physicians and specialists. We applied purposive sampling and conducted constant comparative analyses.

RESULTS

In both countries, the use of sedation was described in diverse terms, especially in the USA, and was often experienced as emotionally challenging. Respondents stated different and sometimes multiple intentions for their use of sedation. Besides alleviating severe suffering, most Dutch respondents justified its use by stating that it does not hasten death, while most American respondents indicated that it might hasten death but that this was justifiable as long as that was not their primary intention. While many Dutch respondents indicated that they initiated open discussions about sedation proactively to inform patients about their options and to allow planning, the accounts of American respondents showed fewer and less-open discussions, mostly late in the dying process and with the patient's relatives.

CONCLUSIONS

The justification for sedation and the openness with which it is discussed were found to differ in the accounts of respondents from the USA and the Netherlands. Further clarification of practices and research into the effect and effectiveness of the use of sedation is recommended to enhance informed reflection and policy making.

Bridging the Gap Between Continuous Sedation Until Death and Physician-Assisted Death

The distinction between continuous sedation until death (CSD) and physician-assisted death (PAD) has become a topic of medical ethical debate. We conducted 6 focus groups to examine how nursing home clinicians perceive this distinction. For some, the difference is clear whereas others consider CSD a form of euthanasia. Another group situates CSD between pain relief and ending life. Arguments for these perspectives refer to the following themes: intention, dosage of sedative drugs, unconsciousness, and the pace of the dying process. Generally, CSD is considered emotionally easier to deal with since it entails a gradual dying process. Nursing home clinicians have diverging perceptions of the relation between CSD and PAD; some consider CSD to be more than a purely palliative measure, that is, also as a means to hasten death.

Continuous sedation until death: the everyday moral reasoning of physicians, nurses and family caregivers in the UK, The Netherlands and Belgium

BACKGROUND

Continuous sedation is increasingly used as a way to relieve symptoms at the end of life. Current research indicates that some physicians, nurses, and relatives involved in this practice experience emotional and/or moral distress. This study aims to provide insight into what may influence how professional and/or family carers cope with such distress.

METHODS

This study is an international qualitative interview study involving interviews with physicians, nurses, and relatives of deceased patients in the UK, The Netherlands and Belgium (the UNBIASED study) about a case of continuous sedation at the end of life they were recently involved in. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed by staying close to the data using open coding. Next, codes were combined into larger themes and categories of codes resulting in a four point scheme that captured all of the data. Finally, our findings were compared with others and explored in relation to theories in ethics and sociology.

RESULTS

The participants' responses can be captured as different dimensions of 'closeness', i.e. the degree to which one feels connected or 'close' to a certain decision or event. We distinguished four types of 'closeness', namely emotional, physical, decisional, and causal. Using these four dimensions of 'closeness' it became possible to describe how physicians, nurses, and relatives experience their involvement in cases of continuous sedation until death. More specifically, it shined a light on the everyday moral reasoning employed by care providers and relatives in the context of continuous sedation, and how this affected the emotional impact of being involved in sedation, as well as the perception of their own moral responsibility.

CONCLUSION

Findings from this study demonstrate that various factors are reported to influence the degree of closeness to continuous sedation (and thus the extent to which carers feel morally responsible), and that some of these factors help care providers and relatives to distinguish continuous sedation from euthanasia.

Effectiveness of multidisciplinary team conference on decision-making surrounding the application of continuous deep sedation for terminally ill cancer patients

OBJECTIVE

Continuous deep sedation (CDS) is a way to reduce conscious experience of symptoms of severe suffering in terminally ill cancer patients. However, there is wide variation in the frequency of its reported. So we conducted a retrospective analysis to assess the prevalence and features of CDS in our palliative care unit (PCU).

METHODS

We performed a systemic retrospective analysis of the medical and nursing records of all 1581 cancer patients who died at the PCU at Higashi Sapporo Hospital between April 2005 and August 2011. Continuous deep sedation can only be administered safely and appropriately when a multidisciplinary team is involved in the decision-making process. Prior to administration of CDS, a multidisciplinary team conference (MDTC) was held with respect to all the patients considered for CDS by an attending physician. The main outcome measures were the frequency and characteristics of CDS (patient background, all target symptoms, medications used for sedation, duration, family's satisfaction, and distress). We mailed anonymous questionnaires to bereaved families in August 2011.

RESULTS

Of 1581 deceased patients, 22 (1.39%) had received CDS. Physical exhaustion 8 (36.4%), dyspnea 7 (31.8%), and pain 5 (22.7%) were the most frequently mentioned indications. Continuous deep sedation had a duration of less than 1 week in 17 (77.3%). Six patients (0.38%) did not meet the appropriate criteria for CDS according to the MDTC and so did not receive it. Although bereaved families were generally comfortable with the practice of CDS, some expressed a high level of emotional distress.

SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS

Our results indicate that the prevalence of CDS will be decreased when it is carried out solely for appropriate indications. Continuity of teamwork, good coordination, exchange of information, and communication between the various care providers are essential. A lack of any of these may lead to inadequate assessment, information discrepancies, and unrest.

From sedation to continuous sedation until death: how has the conceptual basis of sedation in end-of-life care changed over time?

CONTEXT

Numerous attempts have been made to describe and define sedation in end-of-life care over time. However, confusion and inconsistency in the use of terms and definitions persevere in the literature, making interpretation, comparison, and extrapolation of many studies and case analyses problematic.

OBJECTIVES

This evidence review aims to address and account for the conceptual debate over the terminology and definitions ascribed to sedation at the end of life over time.

METHODS

Six electronic databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, AMED, CINAHL, and PsycINFO) and two high-impact journals (New England Journal of Medicine and the British Medical Journal) were searched for indexed materials published between 1945 and 2011. This search resulted in bibliographic data of 328 published outputs. Terms and definitions were manually scanned, coded, and linguistically analyzed by means of term description criteria and discourse analysis.

RESULTS

The review shows that terminology has evolved from simple to complex terms with definitions varying in length, comprising different aspects of sedation such as indications for use, pharmacology, patient symptomatology, target population, time of initiation, and ethical considerations, in combinations of a minimum of two or more of these aspects.

CONCLUSION

There is a pressing need to resolve the conceptual confusion that currently exists in the literature to bring clarity to the dialogue and build a base of commonality on which to design research and enhance the practice of sedation in end-of-life care.

Intentional sedation to unconsciousness at the end of life: findings from a national physician survey

CONTEXT

The terms "palliative sedation" and "terminal sedation" have been used to refer to both proportionate palliative sedation, in which unconsciousness is a foreseen but unintended side effect, and palliative sedation to unconsciousness, in which physicians aim to make their patients unconscious until death. It has not been clear to what extent palliative sedation to unconsciousness is accepted and practiced by U.S. physicians.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate U.S. physician acceptance and practice of palliative sedation to unconsciousness and to identify predictors of that practice.

METHODS

In 2010, a survey was mailed to 2016 practicing U.S. physicians. Criterion measures included self-reported practice of palliative sedation to unconsciousness until death and physician endorsement of such sedation for a hypothetical patient with existential suffering at the end of life.

RESULTS

Of the 1880 eligible physicians, 1156 responded to the survey (62%). One in ten (141/1156) physicians had sedated a patient in the previous 12 months with the specific intention of making the patient unconscious until death, and two of three physicians opposed sedation to unconsciousness for existential suffering, both in principle (68%, n = 773) and in the case of a hypothetical dying patient (72%, n = 831). Eighty-five percent (n = 973) of physicians agreed that unconsciousness is an acceptable side effect of palliative sedation but should not be directly intended.

CONCLUSION

Although there is widespread support among U.S. physicians for proportionate palliative sedation, intentionally sedating dying patients to unconsciousness until death is neither the norm in clinical practice nor broadly supported for the treatment of primarily existential suffering.

Continuous sedation until death: moral justifications of physicians and nurses--a content analysis of opinion pieces

Continuous sedation until death (CSD), the act of reducing or removing the consciousness of an incurably ill patient until death, often provokes medical-ethical discussions in the opinion sections of medical and nursing journals. A content analysis of opinion pieces in medical and nursing literature was conducted to examine how clinicians define and describe CSD, and how they justify this practice morally. Most publications were written by physicians and published in palliative or general medicine journals. Terminal Sedation and Palliative Sedation are the most frequently used terms to describe CSD. Seventeen definitions with varying content were identified. CSD was found to be morally justified in 73% of the publications using justifications such as Last Resort, Doctrine of Double Effect, Sanctity of Life, Autonomy, and Proportionality. The debate over CSD in the opinion sections of medical and nursing journals lacks uniform terms and definitions, and is profoundly marked by 'charged language', aiming at realizing agreement in attitude towards CSD. Not all of the moral justifications found are equally straightforward. To enable a more effective debate, the terms, definitions and justifications for CSD need to be further clarified.

French Swiss physicians' attitude toward palliative sedation: Influence of prognosis and type of suffering

OBJECTIVE

Palliative sedation is a last resort medical act aimed at relieving intolerable suffering induced by intractable symptoms in patients at the end-of-life. This act is generally accepted as being medically indicated under certain circumstances. A controversy remains in the literature as to its ethical validity. There is a certain vagueness in the literature regarding the legitimacy of palliative sedation in cases of non-physical refractory symptoms, especially "existential suffering." This pilot study aims to measure the influence of two independent variables (short/long prognosis and physical/existential suffering) on the physicians' attitudes toward palliative sedation (dependent variable).

METHODS

We used a 2 × 2 experimental design as described by Blondeau et al. Four clinical vignettes were developed (vignette 1: short prognosis/existential suffering; vignette 2: long prognosis/existential suffering; vignette 3: short prognosis/physical suffering; vignette 4: long prognosis/physical suffering). Each vignette presented a terminally ill patient with a summary description of his physical and psychological condition, medication, and family situation. The respondents' attitude towards sedation was assessed with a six-point Likert scale. A total of 240 vignettes were sent to selected Swiss physicians.

RESULTS

74 vignettes were completed (36%). The means scores for attitudes were 2.62 ± 2.06 (v1), 1.88 ± 1.54 (v2), 4.54 ± 1.67 (v3), and 4.75 ± 1.71 (v4). General linear model analyses indicated that only the type of suffering had a significant impact on the attitude towards sedation (F = 33.92, df = 1, p = 0.000). Significance of the results: The French Swiss physicians' attitude toward palliative sedation is more favorable in case of physical suffering than in existential suffering. These results are in line with those found in the study of Blondeau et al. with Canadian physicians and will be discussed in light of the arguments given by physicians to explain their decisions.

Autonomy-based arguments against physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia: a critique

Respect for autonomy is typically considered a key reason for allowing physician assisted suicide and euthanasia. However, several recent papers have claimed this to be grounded in a misconception of the normative relevance of autonomy. It has been argued that autonomy is properly conceived of as a value, and that this makes assisted suicide as well as euthanasia wrong, since they destroy the autonomy of the patient. This paper evaluates this line of reasoning by investigating the conception of valuable autonomy. Starting off from the current debate in end-of-life care, two different interpretations of how autonomy is valuable is discussed. According to one interpretation, autonomy is a personal prudential value, which may provide a reason why euthanasia and assisted suicide might be against a patient's best interests. According to a second interpretation, inspired by Kantian ethics, being autonomous is unconditionally valuable, which may imply a duty to preserve autonomy. We argue that both lines of reasoning have limitations when it comes to situations relevant for end-of life care. It is concluded that neither way of reasoning can be used to show that assisted suicide or euthanasia always is impermissible.

The practice of continuous deep sedation until death in Flanders (Belgium), the Netherlands, and the U.K.: a comparative study

CONTEXT

Existing empirical evidence shows that continuous deep sedation until death is given in about 15% of all deaths in Flanders, Belgium (BE), 8% in The Netherlands (NL), and 17% in the U.K.

OBJECTIVES

This study compares characteristics of continuous deep sedation to explain these varying frequencies.

METHODS

In Flanders, BE (2007) and NL (2005), death certificate studies were conducted. Questionnaires about continuous deep sedation and other decisions were sent to the certifying physicians of each death from a stratified sample (Flanders, BE: n=6927; NL: n=6860). In the U.K. in 2007-2008, questionnaires were sent to 8857 randomly sampled physicians asking them about the last death attended.

RESULTS

The total number of deaths studied was 11,704 of which 1517 involved continuous deep sedation. In Dutch hospitals, continuous deep sedation was significantly less often provided (11%) compared with hospitals in Flanders, BE (20%) and the U.K. (17%). In U.K. home settings, continuous deep sedation was more common (19%) than in Flanders, BE (10%) or NL (8%). In NL in both settings, continuous deep sedation more often involved benzodiazepines and lasted less than 24 hours. Physicians in Flanders combined continuous deep sedation with a decision to provide physician-assisted death more often. Overall, men, younger patients, and patients with malignancies were more likely to receive continuous deep sedation, although this was not always significant within each country.

CONCLUSION

Differences in the prevalence of continuous deep sedation appear to reflect complex legal, cultural, and organizational factors more than differences in patients' characteristics or clinical profiles. Further in-depth studies should explore whether these differences also reflect differences between countries in the quality of end-of-life care.

Palliative sedation in end-of-life care and survival: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Palliative sedation is a clinical procedure aimed at relieving refractory symptoms in patients with advanced cancer. It has been suggested that sedative drugs may shorten life, but few studies exist comparing the survival of sedated and nonsedated patients. We present a systematic review of literature on the clinical practice of palliative sedation to assess the effect, if any, on survival.

METHODS

A systematic review of literature published between January 1980 and December 2010 was performed using MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. Search terms included palliative sedation, terminal sedation, refractory symptoms, cancer, neoplasm, palliative care, terminally ill, end-of-life care, and survival. A manual search of the bibliographies of electronically identified articles was also performed.

RESULTS

Eleven published articles were identified describing 1,807 consecutive patients in 10 retrospective or prospective nonrandomized studies, 621 (34.4%) of whom were sedated. One case-control study was excluded from prevalence analysis. The most frequent reason for sedation was delirium in the terminal stages of illness (median, 57.1%; range, 13.8% to 91.3%). Benzodiazepines were the most common drug category prescribed. Comparing survival of sedated and nonsedated patients, the sedation approach was not shown to be associated with worse survival.

CONCLUSION

Even if there is no direct evidence from randomized clinical trials, palliative sedation, when appropriately indicated and correctly used to relieve unbearable suffering, does not seem to have any detrimental effect on survival of patients with terminal cancer. In this setting, palliative sedation is a medical intervention that must be considered as part of a continuum of palliative care.

A survey of the sedation practice of Portuguese palliative care teams

AIM

The purpose of this study is to study the practice of sedation by Portuguese palliative care teams.

METHODS

The teams included on the website of the Portuguese Association for Palliative Care were invited to participate. Data from all the patients sedated between April and June 2010 were recorded. Sedation was defined as the intentional administration of sedative drugs for symptom control, except insomnia, independently of the consciousness level reached.

RESULTS

Of the 19 teams invited only 4 actually participated. During the study period, 181 patients were treated: 171 (94 %) were cancer patients and 10 non-cancer patients. Twenty-seven (16 %) patients were sedated: 13 intermittently, 11 continuously, and 3 intermittently at first then continuously. The rate of sedation varied substantially among the teams. Delirium was the most frequent reason for sedation. Midazolam was the drug used in most cases. In 21 cases of sedation, the decision was made unilaterally by the professionals; in 16 (76 %) of those, the situation was deemed to be emergent. From the patients on continuous sedation, 9 (64 %) patients maintained oxygen, 13 (93 %) hydration, and 6 (43 %) nutrition. Two patients who had undergone intermittent sedation were discharged home and one was transferred to another institution; the reason for sedation in the three cases was delirium.

CONCLUSION

There is a substantial variation in the sedation rate among the teams. One of the most important aspects was the decision-making process which should be object of reflection and discussion in the teams.

Do surrogates have a right to refuse pain medications for incompetent patients?

The relief of pain is widely considered to be a basic human right. Physicians are expected to make every attempt to relieve pain and suffering, especially in patients who do not have capacity. This article presents a case in which the family of a woman with severe somatic pain from metastatic breast cancer requests that pain medications be reduced and, at times, held. The ethical issues associated with surrogate decision making and the refusal of medical treatments are reviewed. The obligation to treat pain remains paramount despite family objections.