Palliative sedation: autonomy, suffering, and euthanasia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This contemporary and novel review of palliative sedation explores some of the distinctive ethical problems associated with that intervention. It is timely in light of recent reviews of palliative care guidelines on the topic and given the current public debates around the related but distinct practice of euthanasia.

RECENT FINDINGS

The main themes discussed are patient autonomy, the nature of suffering and how to alleviate it, and the relationship between palliative sedation and euthanasia.

SUMMARY

First, palliative sedation poses a significant problem for patient autonomy, both in terms of securing informed consent and in terms of the ongoing effect on individual well-being. Second, as an intervention to alleviate suffering, it is appropriate only in limited cases and counterproductive in others, for example, where an individual values their ongoing psychological or social agency more than the relief of pain or negative experience. Third, people's ethical views about palliative sedation are often coloured by their understanding of the legal and moral status of assisted dying and euthanasia; this is unhelpful and occludes the interesting and urgent ethical questions raised by palliative sedation as a distinct end-of-life intervention.

Disability-based arguments against assisted dying laws

Some of the most common arguments against legalizing assisted dying are based on appealing to the rights of people with disabilities. This article identifies and responds to those arguments, including that people with disabilities univocally oppose assisted dying laws; that those laws harm people with disabilities, or show disrespect; and that those laws undermine other vital aspects of healthcare. Drawing on philosophical argument, as well as on evidence from jurisdictions where assisted dying is legal, the article concludes that considerations of disability do not in fact generate good arguments against assisted dying laws. In fact, the opposite is true. There are nevertheless important lessons that proponents and defenders of such laws can learn in conversation with people with disabilities, including about safeguards on assisted dying to protect their well-being and autonomy.

Autonomy, voluntariness and assisted dying

Ethical arguments about assisted dying often focus on whether or not respect for an individual's autonomy gives a reason to offer them an assisted death if they want it. In this paper, I present an argument for legalising assisted dying which appeals to the autonomy of people who don't want to die. Adding that option can transform the nature of someone's choice set, enabling them to pursue other options voluntarily where that would otherwise be harder or impossible. This does not contradict the more familiar arguments for legalising assisted dying based on the autonomy of those who seek to die. But it does suggest that a wider constituency of support for that legislative change might be created by emphasising that one need not be in that position to be benefited by the change.

Interventions at the end of life - a taxonomy for 'overlapping consensus'

Context: Around the world there is increasing interest in end of life issues. An unprecedented number of people dying in future decades will put new strains on families, communities, services and governments.  It will also have implications for representations of death and dying within society and for the overall orientation of health and social care. What interventions are emerging in the face of these challenges? Methods: We conceptualize a comprehensive taxonomy of interventions, defined as 'organized responses to end of life issues'. Findings: We classify the range of end of life interventions into 10 substantive categories: policy, advocacy, educational, ethico-legal, service, clinical, research, cultural, intangible, self-determined. We distinguish between two empirical aspects of any end of life intervention: the 'locus' refers to the space or spaces in which it is situated; the 'focus' captures its distinct character and purpose. We also contend that end of life interventions can be seen conceptually in two ways - as 'frames' (organized responses that primarily construct a shared understanding of an end of life issue) or as 'instruments' (organized responses that assume a shared understanding and then move to act in that context). Conclusions: Our taxonomy opens up the debate about end of life interventions in new ways to provide protagonists, activists, policy makers, clinicians, researchers and educators with a comprehensive framework in which to place their endeavours and more effectively to assess their efficacy. Following the inspiration of political philosopher John Rawls, we seek to foster an 'overlapping consensus' on how interventions at the end of life can be construed, understood and assessed.