Physician-assisted Suicide Euthanasia Research Articles

Expanding the Use of Continuous Sedation Until Death and Physician-Assisted Suicide.

The controversy over the equivalence of continuous sedation until death (CSD) and physician-assisted suicide/euthanasia (PAS/E) provides an opportunity to focus on a significant extended use of CSD. This extension, suggested by the equivalence of PAS/E and CSD, is designed to promote additional patient autonomy at the end-of-life. Samuel LiPuma, in his article, "Continuous Sedation Until Death as Physician-Assisted Suicide/Euthanasia: A Conceptual Analysis" claims equivalence between CSD and death; his paper is seminal in the equivalency debate. Critics contend that sedation follows proportionality protocols for which LiPuma's thesis does not adequately account. Furthermore, sedation may not eliminate consciousness, and as such LiPuma's contention that CSD is equivalent to neocortical death is suspect. We not only defend the equivalence thesis, but also expand it to include additional moral considerations. First, we explain the equivalence thesis. This is followed by a defense of the thesis against five criticisms. The third section critiques the current use of CSD. Finally, we offer two proposals that, if adopted, would broaden the use of PAS/E and CSD and thereby expand options at the end-of-life.

Distancing sedation in end-of-life care from physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia.

Lipuma equates continuous sedation until death (CSD) to physician-assisted suicide/euthanasia (PAS/E) based on the premise that iatrogenic unconsciousness negates social function and, thus, personhood, leaving a patient effectively 'dead'. Others have extrapolated upon this position further, to suggest that any use of sedation and/or opioids at the end of life would be analogous to CSD and thus tantamount to PAS/E. These posits sit diametrically opposite to standard end-of-life care practices. This paper will refute Lipuma's position and the posits borne from it. We first show that prevailing end-of-life care guidelines require proportional and monitored use of sedatives and/or opioids to attenuate fears that the use of such treatment could hasten death. These guidelines also classify CSD as a last resort treatment, employed only when symptoms prove intractable, and not amenable to all standard treatment options. Furthermore, CSD is applied only when deemed appropriate by a multidisciplinary palliative medicine team. We also show that empirical data based on local views of personhood will discount concerns that iatrogenic unconsciousness is tantamount to a loss of personhood and death.

Preferences in end-of-life care of older persons: after-death interviews with proxy respondents

This population-based study employing after-death interviews with proxies describes older persons’ preferences regarding medical care at the end of life. Interviews were held with 270 proxy respondents of 342 deceased persons (age range 59–91) in the Netherlands, The deceased were respondents to the Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam. The prevalence of advance directives (ADs), preferences for medical decisions at the end of life (i.e. withholding treatment, physician-assisted suicide euthanasia) and preferences about the focus of treatment in the last week of life (i.e. comfort care versus extending life) were examined. Written ADs were present in 14% of the sample. A quarter had designated a surrogate decision-maker. Co-morbidity and perceived self-efficacy (PSE) were positively associated with ADs. About half the sample had expressed a preference in favour or against one or more medical decisions at the end of life. Predictors positively associated with expressing a preference were co-morbidity, dying from cancer, and PSE. Being religious was negatively associated with expressing a preference. The knowledge of the proxy regarding the older person's preference for the focus of treatment was dependent on the patient's symptom burden as perceived by the proxy. The majority of older persons had died without either an AD, or having expressed preferences for end-of-life care. Stimulating the formulation of ADs may help professionals who work with older people to understand these preferences better, especially in the case of non-cancer patients and those with low PSE.