• L J Materstvedt and S Kaasa.
• Den Norske Kreftforening, Det medisinske fakultet Norges teknisk-naturvitenskapelige universitet, Trondheim.
• Tidsskr. Nor. Laegeforen. 2000 Jun 10; 120 (15): 1763-8.

AbstractIn order to be able to discuss the issue of whether or not terminal sedation is, or may be conceived of as, a form of help in dying, one needs to be very clear as to the meaning of the terms "help in dying" and "terminal sedation". In this article, we suggest what we take to be detailed and precise definitions of the two forms of voluntary help in dying--euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Our definitions (interpretations) basically draw on the Dutch experience and understanding. The Dutch approach implies that acts of abstention, i.e., withholding and withdrawing treatment, and pain and symptom treatment with possible life-shortening effect, including terminal sedation, are to be considered "normal medical practice". Furthermore, death is seen by almost all parties as having natural causes in all of these acts. We also suggest that "palliative sedation" should substitute the expression "terminal sedation". Furthermore, we discuss on what grounds this treatment strategy may be induced, including a presentation of criteria and guidelines that must be met; the issue of documentation of the strategy; palliative sedation in the light of the ethical principle of double effect; and in what way euthanasia could be concealed as palliative sedation. In closing, we comment briefly on the phenomenon of large differences between published cohorts with regard to the frequency of use of palliative sedation. This treatment strategy is open to be challenged both clinically and ethically, and all parties would benefit from a continuous debate over the legitimacy of, and the clinical need for, palliative sedation.

16 keywords...

hide…