Can Doctors Provide Terminal Sedation Morally

Healthcare Ethics

The bioethics debate surrounding physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia centers on how lives are valued. The article by Papavasiliou et al. (2014) focuses on the issue of whether physician-assisted suicide is morally permissive in healthcare. Opponents argue that it is wrong to take away someone else’s life when they do not want any more pain, while others believe in a moral philosophy where patients deserve an easier death than what nature has prescribed for them because living with illness or injury can be painful enough (Papavasiliou et al., 2014). Terminal sedation may appear as though there would not really ever need be anyone requesting its use but this type of intervention involves administrative oversight; withdrawing care from a patient whose vitals have stopped - whether by choice or by nature.

Terminal sedation—or palliative sedation—is the continuous administration of sedative drugs to a dying patient in order to keep them unconscious until death occurs. The main aim of terminal sedation is to relieve suffering, rather than hasten death. It is important to distinguish between terminal sedation and euthanasia, as they are two very different things. Terminal sedation is sometimes seen as a more humane way of dying than euthanasia, as it does not involve hastening death (Papavasiliou et al., 2014). However, some people argue that it is morally wrong to keep someone unconscious until they die, as it denies them the opportunity to say goodbye to loved ones or to have any final thoughts or experiences. There is also a risk that terminal sedation may be misused, for example if a patient is sedated because they are considered to be a burden on their family or society, rather than because they are truly suffering (Papavasiliou et al., 2014). Terminal sedation is a complex and emotive issue, and there is no easy answer as to whether it is moral or not, as the authors conclude in their article. Ultimately, this is something that each individual must decide for themselves, especially as ethical and moral norms are constantly shifting in society.

In my opinion, the article is spot on and does a good job of highlighting a major healthcare ethics issue. Already in some parts of the US, dying with dignity—as it is often called—is legal: states on the West Coast for instance have passed laws protecting physician-assisted suicide. But is this really ethical considering that doctors take the Hippocratic Oath? Papavasiliou et al. (2014) shed light on what real doctors in real health care settings think about the ethical issue of terminal sedation vs. euthanasia. It is interesting to be able to hear their takes on the matter. It is basically backed up by other research I have come across. For instance, Vaughn (2012) in his book has reported the same thing, and I believe he is correct to bring up the issue of terminal sedation as it does get to the heart of the matter. For instance, in his book, Vaughn (2012) adopts a biological standpoint and asserts that “the bioethical heart of the matter is the moral rightness of killing or letting die for the good of the patient” (p. 625). The author asserts that most doctors oppose euthanasia on moral grounds, although they do tend to support terminal sedation in certain cases.