| Literature DB >> 26242447 |
Joseph A Raho1, Guido Miccinesi2.
Abstract
Patients who are imminently dying sometimes experience symptoms refractory to traditional palliative interventions, and in rare cases, continuous sedation is offered. Samuel H. LiPuma, in a recent article in this Journal, argues that continuous sedation until death is equivalent to physician-assisted suicide/euthanasia based on a higher brain neocortical definition of death. We contest his position that continuous sedation involves killing and offer four objections to the equivalency thesis. First, sedation practices are proportional in a way that physician-assisted suicide/euthanasia is not. Second, continuous sedation may not entirely abolish consciousness. Third, LiPuma's particular version of higher brain neocortical death relies on an implausibly weak construal of irreversibility--a position that is especially problematic in the case of continuous sedation. Finally, we explain why continuous sedation until death is not functionally equivalent to neocortical death and, hence, physician-assisted suicide/euthanasia. Concluding remarks review the differences between these two end-of-life practices.Entities:
Keywords: continuous sedation until death; higher brain death; palliative care; proportionality; reversibility
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26242447 DOI: 10.1093/jmp/jhv018
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Med Philos ISSN: 0360-5310