Julie Mazoyer1, María Teresa Muñoz Sastre1, Paul Clay Sorum2, Etienne Mullet3. 1. Jean-Jaurès University, Psychology, Toulouse, France. 2. Department of Medicine, Albany Medical College, Latham, New York, USA. 3. Ethics and Work Laboratory, Institute for Advanced Studies, Paris, France.
Abstract
AIM: To study the views on the acceptability of terminal sedation (TS) of laypeople and health professionals in France. METHOD: In November 2013-June 2015, 223 laypeople and 53 health professionals (21 physicians and 32) judged the acceptability of TS in 48 realistic scenarios composed of all combinations of four factors: (a) the patients' life expectancy, (b) their request for sedation, (c) the decision-making process and (d) the type of sedation. In all scenarios, the patients were women with a terminal illness suffering from intractable pain and receiving the best possible care. The ratings were subjected to cluster analysis and analyses of variance. RESULTS: Five qualitatively different positions were found that were termed TS acceptable if decision taken collectively (15%), TS acceptable if patient explicitly requested it (19%), TS acceptable if patient did not explicitly oppose it (47%), 24-hour sedation not acceptable (6%) and TS always acceptable (13%). The percentage of older participants in the 'always acceptable' cluster was higher than the percentage of younger participants. CONCLUSIONS: Laypeople and health professionals do not appear to be systematically opposed to TS. The most important factors in increasing its acceptability were the patients' request for sedation and the collective character of the decision-making process. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
AIM: To study the views on the acceptability of terminal sedation (TS) of laypeople and health professionals in France. METHOD: In November 2013-June 2015, 223 laypeople and 53 health professionals (21 physicians and 32) judged the acceptability of TS in 48 realistic scenarios composed of all combinations of four factors: (a) the patients' life expectancy, (b) their request for sedation, (c) the decision-making process and (d) the type of sedation. In all scenarios, the patients were women with a terminal illness suffering from intractable pain and receiving the best possible care. The ratings were subjected to cluster analysis and analyses of variance. RESULTS: Five qualitatively different positions were found that were termed TS acceptable if decision taken collectively (15%), TS acceptable if patient explicitly requested it (19%), TS acceptable if patient did not explicitly oppose it (47%), 24-hour sedation not acceptable (6%) and TS always acceptable (13%). The percentage of older participants in the 'always acceptable' cluster was higher than the percentage of younger participants. CONCLUSIONS: Laypeople and health professionals do not appear to be systematically opposed to TS. The most important factors in increasing its acceptability were the patients' request for sedation and the collective character of the decision-making process. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
Entities:
Keywords:
Decision-making; Elderly and Terminally Ill; End of Life Care