Ethical issues in palliative care.

Abstract

The relief of suffering is one of the aims of health care. Pain relief is a moral obligation in health care, not an optional extra. Doctors have moral obligations to strive to relieve pain, to be competent in basic pain control, and to endeavour to give patients an adequate understanding of their illness and painkillers. The most common moral problem in pain control in terminally ill patients is the conflict between the obligation to relieve suffering and the obligation to prolong life. The law prohibits intentionally causing the death of another person. Debates follow as to what constitutes an intention to cause death, and what actually constitutes a cause of death. At present, doctors are legally permitted to give sedatives and analgesics to terminally ill patients with the intention of relieving suffering, even if life is shortened. The moral principle of the 'double effect' relates to this and is explained. It relies on a distinction between intended and foreseen effects of treatment. Some people dispute the distinction between intended and foreseen effects and claim that the principle of double effect allows doctors who intend euthanasia to carry it out under cover of the law. This debate is explored in the article. Finally, is it ever morally justifiable to end the patient's life on the grounds that this is the only way to end pain? Even if it is, should euthanasia be legalised? A brief comment on these issues, and the roles of law and morality, are made.