British laypeople’s attitudes towards gradual sedation, sedation to unconsciousness and euthanasia at the end of life (original) (raw)
2021, PLOS ONE
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.
Related papers
Health (London, England : 1997), 2014
The application of ethically controversial medical procedures may differ from one place to another. Drawing on a keyword and text-mining analysis of 156 interviews with doctors and nurses involved in end-of-life care ('care providers'), differences between countries in care providers' ethical rationales for the use of sedation are reported. In the United Kingdom, an emphasis on titrating doses proportionately against symptoms is more likely, maintaining consciousness where possible. The potential harms of sedation are perceived to be the potential hastening of social as well as biological death. In Belgium and the Netherlands, although there is concern to distinguish the practice from euthanasia, rapid inducement of deep unconsciousness is more acceptable to care providers. This is often perceived to be a proportionate response to unbearable suffering in a context where there is also greater pressure to hasten dying from relatives and others. This means that sedation is ...
The aim of this paper is to review the ethical debate concerning palliative sedation. Although recent guidelines articulate the differences between palliative sedation and euthanasia, the ethical controversies remain. The dominant view that euthanasia and palliative sedation are morally distinct practices is contested because of ambiguous moral experiences as well as considerable practice variation. Heterogeneous sedative practices are labelled as palliative sedation. The concept of palliative sedation is expanded to include practices that intend to bring about the patients’ death. The ethical distinction with euthanasia is lost when the notion of intention is no longer used in a restricted way as the aim guiding the action. In the paper it is argued that intention should be used in a restricted way. The significance of intention is related to other ethical parameters to demarcate the practice of palliative sedation: terminality, refractory symptoms, proportionality, and separation from other end-of-life decisions. These additional parameters, though not without ethical and practical problems, together formulate a framework to ethically distinguish a more narrowly defined practice of palliative sedation from practices of euthanasia. Finally, the paper raises the question what impact palliative sedation is having on palliative care itself. The increasing interest for palliative sedation may re-emphasize characteristics of health care that initially encouraged the emergence of palliative care in the first place: the focus on therapy rather than care, the physical dimension rather than the whole person, the individual rather than the community, the primacy of intervention rather than receptiveness and presence.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.