Terminal sedation: ethical implications in different situations.

Abstract

Terminal sedation (TS) is a recently coined term that may apply to a variety of practices with differing ethical implications. Two hypothetical cases are presented and contrasted. The first presents the more common scenario in which sedation is used for severe distress in a patient very close to death, who has stopped eating and drinking. The second case is more problematic: a nonterminally ill spinal cord injury patient requests sedation because of psychic distress. Sedation is supported in the former, but not the latter case. Suggested principles guiding the ethical use of sedation are: (1) While respect for autonomy is important, we are not obliged under all circumstances to provide sedation. (2) Physician intent matters. In providing sedation the physician's primary intent should be to alleviate suffering. (3) Reasonable inferences of intent can be made from physician actions, providing safeguards to ensure proper care. Sedatives should be titrated to observable signs of distress. (4) Proximity to death is a more useful concept than terminality in weighing benefits and burdens of sedation. (5) The nature of physician action should depend upon the nature of the suffering. Not all suffering is appropriately treated with sedation. (6) In patients close to death who have already stopped eating and drinking, sedation cannot be said to hasten death through dehydration or starvation. (7) Where TS is otherwise appropriate and where dehydration may in fact hasten death, ethical concerns may be addressed through informed consent. If hydration is refused, TS cannot be considered synonymous with euthanasia.