TY  - JOUR
PY  - 2016//
TI  - Distancing sedation in end-of-life care from physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia
JO  - Singapore medical journal
A1  - Tze-Ling-Gwendoline-Beatrice SOH, 
A1  - Lalit-Kumar-Radha KRISHNA, 
A1  - Sim, Shin-Wei
A1  - Alethea-Chung-Peng YEE, 
SP  - 220
EP  - 227
VL  - 
IS  - 
N2  - Lipuma equates continuous sedation until death (CSD) to physician-assisted suicide/euthanasia (PAS/E) based on the premise that iatrogenic unconsciousness negates social function and, thus, personhood, leaving a patient effectively 'dead'. Others have extrapolated upon this position further, to suggest that any use of sedation and/or opioids at the end of life would be analogous to CSD and thus tantamount to PAS/E. These posits sit diametrically opposite to standard end-of-life care practices. This paper will refute Lipuma's position and the posits borne from it. We first show that prevailing end-of-life care guidelines require proportional and monitored use of sedatives and/or opioids to attenuate fears that the use of such treatment could hasten death. These guidelines also classify CSD as a last resort treatment, employed only when symptoms prove intractable, and not amenable to all standard treatment options. Furthermore, CSD is applied only when deemed appropriate by a multidisciplinary palliative medicine team. We also show that empirical data based on local views of personhood will discount concerns that iatrogenic unconsciousness is tantamount to a loss of personhood and death.<p /> <p>Language: en</p>
LA  - en
SN  - 0037-5675
UR  - http://dx.doi.org/10.11622/smedj.2016086
ID  - ref1
ER  -