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 fi rst 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.

No abstract

Appropriate and balanced decision-making is sentinel to goal setting and the provision of appropriate clinical care that are attuned to preserving the best interests of the patient. Current family-led decision-making in family-centric societies such as those in Singapore and other countries in East Asia are believed to compromise these objectives in favor of protecting familial interests. Redressing these skewed clinical practices employing autonomy-based patient-centric approaches however have been found wanting in their failure to contend with wider sociocultural considerations that impact care determinations. Evaluation of a number of alternative decision-making frameworks set out to address the shortcomings of prevailing atomistic and family-centric decision-making models within the confines of end-of-life care prove these alternative frameworks to be little better at protecting the best interests of vulnerable patients. As a result, we propose the Welfare Model that we believe is attentive to the relevant socio-culturally significant considerations of a particular case and better meets the needs of end-of-life care goals of preserving the welfare of patients. Employing a multi-professional team evaluation guided by regnant psychosocial, legal, and clinical standards and the prevailing practical and clinical realities of the particular patient’s setting the Welfare Model provides a clinically relevant, culturally sensitive, transparent, and evidence-based approach to care determinations.