Palliative sedation: autonomy, suffering, and euthanasia

Abstract

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.

Public Attitude towards Implementing DNAR and a Stance on Pediatric DNAR in Poland—A Prospective Survey Study

“…Some people, however, consider this practice to be on par with euthanasia-bringing death to another person because of the belief that they would be better off dead [2,3]. This naturally is a controversial statement as DNAR is passive and results in not helping, while euthanasia is mostly an action that brings death in a controlled way to a person [4].…”