Advertisement

The Delineation and Explication of Palliative Options of Last Resort

  • Ben A. Rich
Chapter

Abstract

Palliative options of last resort have become a major focus of debates over improving care of the dying, particularly in the United States. This chapter will explore a broad spectrum of palliative measures that might be considered to be legitimate approaches to end-of-life pain and suffering, including high-dose opioid analgesia, palliative sedation, lethal prescription (where allowed by law), as well a brief discussion of voluntary active euthanasia (lethal injection). In reviewing palliative options of last resort, the chapter will address related considerations such as debates over proper terminology, the role of intent and causation in making moral judgments about palliative measures, including the Doctrine/Principle/Rule of Double Effect (hereinafter DDE), and the persistence of myths about the risks and benefits associated with palliative measures.

Keywords

Palliative Care Palliative Sedation Assisted Suicide Artificial Nutrition Palliative Measure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine Position Statements. (2010). Statement on palliative sedation. Approved by the Board of Directors September 15, 2006, Glenview, IL. Retrieved June 16, 2010, from http://www.aahpm.org/positions/sedation.html.
  2. American Medical Association Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs. (2010). Sedation to unconsciousness in end-of-life care. CEJA report 5-A-08. Retrieved June 16, 2010, from http:www.ama.org/2201a.pdf.Google Scholar
  3. Annas, G. J. (1995). How we lie. The Hastings Center Report, 25, S12–S14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Battin, M. P. (2008). Pulling the sheet over our eyes. The Hastings Center Report, 38, 27–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Baxter v. Montana. (2009). 224 P.3d 1211, 2009, WL 5155363 (Mont).Google Scholar
  6. Bergman v. Chin. (2001). No. H205732-1 (Alameda County Ct., June 13).Google Scholar
  7. Billings, J. A., & Block, S. D. (1996). Slow euthanasia. Journal of Palliative Care, 12, 21–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Cassell, E. J. (1982). The nature of suffering and the goals of medicine. The New England Journal of Medicine, 306, 639–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cassell, E. J. (2004). The nature of suffering and the goals of medicine. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cherney, N. I., Radbruch, L., & Board of the European Association for Palliative Care. (2009). European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) recommended framework for the use of sedation in palliative care. Palliative Medicine, 23, 581–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chochinov, H. M. (2006). Dying, dignity, and new horizons in palliative end-of-life care. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 56, 84–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Compassion in Dying v. Washington. (1994). 850 F. Supp. 1454 (W.D. Wash).Google Scholar
  13. Connor, S. R., Pyenson, B., Fitch, K., Spence, C., & Iwaski, K. (2007). Comparing hospice and nonhospice patient survival among patients who die within a three -year window. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 33, 238–246.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Education for Physicians on End-of-Life Care. Trainer’s Guide, modol withholding, withdrawing therapy (1999). In: Emanuel LL, von Gunter CG, Ferris FD. EPEC project.http://www.epec.net/index.cfm
  15. Estate of Henry James v. Hillhaven Corporation. (1991). No. 89 CVS 64 (N.C. Super. Ct. January 15).Google Scholar
  16. Field, M. J., Cassel, C. K. (Eds.). (1998). Institute of Medicine. In Approaching death: improving care at the end of life. Washington: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  17. Fishman, S. M. (2007). Responsible opioid prescribing: A physician’s guide. Dallas: Federation of State Medical Boards.Google Scholar
  18. Fox, E. (1997). Predominance of the Curative model of medical care – A Residual Problem. JAMA, 278, 761–763.Google Scholar
  19. Gonzales v. Oregon. (2006). 546 U.S. 243.Google Scholar
  20. Institute of medicine (1998). Approaching Death: Improving Care at the End of Life. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lewis, P. (2007). Assisted dying and legal change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lindsay, R. A. (2009). Oregon’s experience: Evaluating the record. The American Journal of Bioethics, 9, 19–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McIntyre, A. (2004). The double life of double effect. Theoretical Medicine, 25, 61–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Miles, S. H. (2004). The hippocratic oath and the ethics of medicine. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Miller, F. G., Truog, R. D., & Brock, D. W. (2010). Moral fictions and medical ethics. Bioethics, 24(9), 453–460.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Myers, F. J., & Linder, J. (2003). Simultaneous care: Disease treatment and palliative care throughout illness. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 21, 1412–1415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nagel, T. (1970). Death. Noûs, 4, 73–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Oregon Death With Dignity Act. (2010). Oregon revised statutes 127.505, et. Seq. Retrieved June 16, 2010, from http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/127.html.
  29. Oregon Department of Health Services. (2010). 2009 Summary of Oregon death with dignity act. Retrieved June 16, 2010, from http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/docs/year12.pdf.
  30. Orentlicher, D. (1997). The Supreme Court an physician-assisted suicide: Rejecting assisted suicide but embracing euthanasia. The New England Journal of Medicine, 337, 1236–1239.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pearlman, R. A., Cain, K. C., Patrick, D. L., Appelbaum-Maizel, M., Starks, H. E., Jecker, N. S., et al. (1993). Insights pertaining to patient assessments of states worse than death. The Journal of Clinical Ethics, 4, 33–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Pellegrino, E. D. (1998). Emerging ethical issues in palliative care. Journal of American Medical Association, 279, 1521–1522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Quill, T. E., & Cassel, C. K. (2003). Professional organizations’ position statements on physician-assisted suicide: A case for studied neutrality. Archives of Internal Medicine, 138, 208–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Quill, T. E., Dresser, R., & Brock, D. W. (1997). The rule of double effect – A critique of its role in end-of-life decision making. The New England Journal of Medicine, 337, 1768–1771.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Quill, T. E., Lo, B., & Brock, D. W. (1997). Palliative options of last resort: A comparison of voluntarily stopping eating and drinking, terminal sedation, physician-assisted suicide, and voluntary active euthanasia. Journal of American Medical Association, 278, 2099–2104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rich, B. A. (2010). A patient’s guide to pain management. In T. Kushner (Ed.), Surviving health care (pp. 246–263). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. SUPPORT Principal Investigators. (1995). A controlled trial to improve care for seriously ill hospitalized patients. The study to understand prognoses, preferences for outcomes, and risks of treatments (SUPPORT). Journal of American Medical Association, 274, 1591–1598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tomlinson v. Bayberry Care Center, et al. (2002). No. C 02-00120, Superior Court, Contra Costa Co, CA.Google Scholar
  39. Vacco v. Quill. (1997). 521 U.S. 793.Google Scholar
  40. Wanzer, S. H., Federman, D. D., Adelsein, S. J., Cassel, C. K., Cassem, E. H., Cranford, R. E., et al. (1989). The physician’s responsibility toward hopelessly ill patients – A second look. New England Journal of Medicine, 320, 844–849.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Washington v. Glucksberg. (1997). 521 U.S. 702.Google Scholar
  42. Woodward, P. A. (Ed.). (2001). The doctrine of double effect – Philosophers debate a controversial moral principle. Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Davis Medical CenterUniversity of CaliforniaSacramentoUSA

Personalised recommendations