Objectives: To investigate why physicians label end-of-life acts as either ‘euthanasia/ending of life’ or ‘alleviation of symptoms/palliative or terminal sedation’, and to study the association of such labelling with intended reporting of these acts. Conclusions: Similar cases are not uniformly labelled. However, a physicians’ label is strongly associated with their willingness to report their acts. Differences in how physicians label similar acts impede complete societal control. Further education and debate could enhance the level of agreement about what is physician-assisted dying, and thus should be reported, and what not.
Until quite recently bioethicists have had little of depth and probity to say about the duty of healthcare professionals in general and physicians in particular to relieve pain and suffering associated with disease and/or its treatment. The singular exception is the now arguably canonical work by physician and ethicist Eric Cassell, titled The Nature of Suffering and the Goals of Medicine.2 I invoke the word ‘‘canonical’’ on the grounds that to my knowledge no one has offered a sustained critique of Cassell’s conceptual analysis of suffering or of his inextricable linkage of its nature to the essential features of persons. In doing so, Cassell suggests not that living beings without the status of persons cannot suffer, but rather that the suffering experienced by persons is unique precisely because of their essential features.
This study investigates the use of CDS in the United Kingdom. In total, 18.7% (17.3–20.1) of the doctors attending a dying patient reported the use of CDS. CDS was more likely when patients were younger or were dying of cancer. Specialists in care of the elderly were least likely to report the use of CDS; doctors in other hospital specialties were most likely to report its use. CDS was associated with a higher rate of requests from patients or relatives for a hastened death and with a greater incidence of other end-of-life decisions containing some intent to end life by the doctor. Doctors supporting legalization of euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide, or who were nonreligious, were more likely to report using CDS. There was palliative care team involvement in half of all CDS cases, and prescription of opioids alone for sedation occurred in one-fifth of the cases but was not reported by specialists in palliative care.
Continuous deep sedation (CDS) is sometimes used to treat refractory symptoms in terminally ill patients. The aim of this paper was to estimate the frequency and characteristics of CDS in six European countries: Belgium, Denmark, Italy, The Netherlands, Sweden, and Switzerland. Of all deaths, CDS was applied in 2.5% in Denmark and up to 8.5% in Italy. Of all patients receiving CDS, 35% (Italy) and up to 64% (Denmark and The Netherlands) did not receive artificial nutrition or hydration. Patients who received CDS were more often male, younger than 80 years old, more likely to have had cancer, and died more often in a hospital compared to nonsudden deaths without CDS. The high variability of frequency and characteristics of CDS in the studied European countries points out the importance of medical education and scientific debate on this issue.
The total number of deaths studied was 11,704 of which 1517 involved continuous deep sedation. In Dutch hospitals, CDS was significantly less often provided (11%) compared with hospitals in Flanders (20%) and U.K. (17%). In U.K. home settings, CDS was more common (19%) than in Flanders (10%) or NL (8%). In NL in both settings, CDS more often involved benzodiazepines and lasted less than 24 hours. Physicians in Flanders combined CDS with a decision to provide physician-assisted death more often. Overall, men, younger patients, and patients with malignancies were more likely to receive CDS, although this was not always significant within each country. Conclusion Differences in the prevalence of continuous deep sedation appear to reflect complex legal, cultural, and organizational factors more than differences in patients’ characteristics or clinical profiles. Further