• Benoît F Leheup, Elise Piot, Xavier Ducrocq, and Bernard Wary.
• CHR Metz-Thionville, service de soins palliatifs, 57126 Thionville cedex, France. b.leheup@chr-metz-thionville.fr
• Presse Med. 2012 Oct 1; 41 (10): 927-32.

AbstractThe effect of sedation for intractable distress on survival in terminally ill patients is a debated question. For certain people, this would limit the physician's intervention to the detriment of symptom alleviation for patients. The principle of double effect is traditionally used to overcome this ethical conflict. Studies conducted between 1990 and 2009 fail to show that the death of patients undergoing sedation for intractable distress is hastened. Some authors conclude that sedation does not hasten death and claim that principle of double effect is unnecessary in this debate. In our view, caution is required in the interpretation of studies results and absence of evidence of sedation effects on survival cannot be considered as an evidence of absence of sedation effects on survival. Furthermore, we consider obtaining a definitive answer as impossible in the future, as the required cannot be conducted for ethical reasons. Caution, we think, is necessary, especially as sedation is sometimes used with explicit intention of hastening the end of life. Physician's intention, key point of the principle of double effect, comes back into the foreground of ethical debate on sedation for intractable distress. Far from limiting the physician's action, the principle of double effect, which requires us to clarify our intentions, should allow us to make the distinction between sedation for intractable distress and euthanasia.Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

19 keywords...

hide…