English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

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.

Distancing sedation in end-of-life care from physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia