• Tatsuya Morita, Kei Hirai, Tatsuo Akechi, and Yosuke Uchitomi.
• Seirei Hospice, Seirei Mikatabara Hospital, 3453 Mikatabara-cho, Hamamatsu, Shizuoka 433-8558, Japan.
• J Pain Symptom Manage. 2003 Apr 1;25(4):357-62.

AbstractThere is a strong controversy about the differences among standard medical care, palliative sedation therapy, and euthanasia in recent medical literature. To investigate the similarities and differences among these medical treatments, a secondary analysis of two previous surveys was performed. In those surveys, Japanese physicians and the general population were asked to identify their treatment recommendations or preferences for intolerable and refractory distress in the terminal stage. The options were standard medical care without intentional sedation, mild sedation, intermittent deep sedation, continuous deep sedation, and physician-assisted suicide (PAS)/euthanasia. Multidimensional scaling analysis mapped their responses. The physician responses were clustered into 3 groups: 1) standard medical care, 2) palliative sedation therapy including mild, intermittent deep, continuous deep sedation, and 3) PAS/euthanasia. The general population's responses were classified into 3 subgroups: 1) standard medical care, 2) mild and intermittent deep sedation, and 3) a group including continuous deep sedation and PAS/euthanasia. Physicians placed continuous deep sedation closer to mild and intermittent sedation, while the general population mapped it closer to PAS/euthanasia. In conclusion, physicians and general population can generally differentiate the three approaches--standard medical care, palliative sedation therapy, and PAS/euthanasia. We recommend that mild and intermittent deep sedation should be differentiated from standard medical care, and that continuous deep sedation should be dealt with separately from other types of sedation. Clear definitions of palliative sedation therapy will contribute to quality discussion.

10 keywords...

hide…