Skip to main content

Intentions of Physicians and End of Life Care Team

  • 502 Accesses

Part of the Philosophy and Medicine book series (PHME,volume 136)

Abstract

In traditional ethical analyses of end-of-life decision-making the concept of intention plays a crucial role. Through a review of qualitative research and clinically informed analyses of different end-of-life practices such as non-treatment decisions, aggressive symptom relief and palliative sedation, this chapter investigates the role intention plays in contemporary end-of-life practices. Qualitative studies put into doubt two common presuppositions about the intentions of health professionals: that these are directly accessible to the agent, and that they are unambiguous. Two rival interpretations of the findings, which take diametrically opposed views of the helpfulness of the concept of intention and the Principle of Double Effect, are outlined. Finally, by way of a theoretical account of intention, we present our own interpretation and the claim that it is indeed possible to practice excellent end-of-life care without having to intend (the hastening of) a patient’s death.

Keywords

  • Intentions
  • End of life
  • Teamwork

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Woods and Graven offer a four-point definition of what they call the ‘Doctrine of Double Effect’: 1. The act itself must be of a permissible kind (morally good) or at least indifferent (morally neutral). 2. The agent may not positively intend the bad effect but may foresee it (and allow it to happen) but if there were a means to achieve the good effect without the bad effect then that would be the preferred option. 3. The good effect must be produced directly by the action, and not by the bad effect. The agent must not use a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed. 4. The good effect must be sufficiently important to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect. (See Chap. 12, this volume).

  2. 2.

    In October 2017, Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Embase were searched with relevant keywords, yielding 196 references. 131 articles were deemed irrelevant from the title, or were not in English, or were not full journal articles. The remaining 65 articles were assessed by abstract when available, resulting in 17 articles judged potentially relevant. These were evaluated in full text, and 11 articles were found to fit the search criteria. Further detail of the literature search is available on request to the first author.

  3. 3.

    The limits to the usefulness of the ‘counterfactual test’ has been noted in Shaw (2006; 201–204).

References

  • Anquinet, L., Rietjens, J. A., Van Den Block, L., Bossuyt, N., & Deliens, L. (2011). General practitioners’ report of continuous deep sedation until death for patients dying at home: A descriptive study from Belgium. European Journal of General Practice, 17, 5–13.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Anquinet, L., Raus, K., Sterckx, S., Smets, T., Deliens, L., & Rietjens, J. A. (2013). Similarities and differences between continuous sedation until death and euthanasia – Professional caregivers’ attitudes and experiences: A focus group study. Palliative Medicine, 27, 553–561.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Anscombe, G. E. M. (1963). Intention. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aquinas, T. (1948). Summa Theologica. New York: Benziger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2009). Principles of biomedical ethics (6th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, J. (1995). The act itself. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosshard, G., Fischer, S., Van Der Heide, A., Miccinesi, G., & Faisst, K. (2006). Intentionally hastening death by withholding or withdrawing treatment. Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift, 118, 322–326.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Bratman, M. (1987). Intention, plans, and practical reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chappell, T. (2002). Two distinctions that do make a difference: The action/omission distinction and the principle of double effect. Philosophy, 77, 211–233.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, C., Kerridge, I., & Ankeny, R. (2008). Managing intentions: The end-of-life administration of analgesics and sedatives, and the possibility of slow euthanasia. Bioethics, 22, 388–396.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, C. D., Kerridge, I. H., & Ankeny, R. A. (2013). Narratives of ‘terminal sedation’, and the importance of the intention-foresight distinction in palliative care practice. Bioethics, 27, 1–11.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Fournier, V., Belghiti, E., Brunet, L., & Spranzi, M. (2017). Withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration in neonatal intensive care: Parents’ and healthcare practitioners’ views. Medicine, Health Care & Philosophy, 13, 13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, L. A. (2010). Disambiguating clinical intentions: The ethics of palliative sedation. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 35, 19–31.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, L. A., Fogel, J. S., & Brubaker, M. (2013). Experimental philosophy, clinical intentions, and evaluative judgment. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 22, 126–135.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Knobe, J. (2003). Intentional action and side effects in ordinary language. Analysis, 63, 190–194.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Magelssen, M., Kaushal, S., & Nyembwe, A. (2016). Intending, hastening and causing death in non-treatment decisions: A physician interview study. Journal of Medical Ethics, 42, 592–596.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, F. G., Truog, R. D., & Brock, D. W. (2010). Moral fictions and medical ethics. Bioethics, 24, 453–460.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Nichols, S., & Ulatowski, J. (2007). Intuitions and individual differences: The Knobe effect revisited. Mind & Language, 22, 346–365.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Oderberg, D. S. (2000). Moral theory. A non-consequentialist approach. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Onwuteaka-Philipsen, B. D., Van Der Heide, A., Koper, D., Keij-Deerenberg, I., Rietjens, J. A. C., Rurup, M. L., Vrakking, A. M., Georges, J. J., Muller, M. T., Van Der Wal, G., & Van Der Maas, P. J. (2003). Euthanasia and other end-of-life decisions in the Netherlands in 1990, 1995, and 2001. The Lancet, 362, 395–399.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Onwuteaka-Philipsen, B. D., Brinkman-Stoppelenburg, A., Penning, C., De Jong-Krul, G. J. F., Van Delden, J. J. M., & Van Der Heide, A. (2012). Trends in end-of-life practices before and after the enactment of the euthanasia law in the Netherlands from 1990 to 2010: A repeated cross-sectional survey. The Lancet, 380(9845), 908–915.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Papavasiliou, E. E., Payne, S., Brearley, S., & Euroimpact. (2014). Current debates on end-of-life sedation: An international expert elicitation study. Supportive Care in Cancer, 22, 2141–2149.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Pascal, B. (2001). Provincial letters. Eugene: Wipp and Stock.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quill, T. (1991). Death and dignity. A case of individualized decision making. The New England Journal of Medicine, 324, 691.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Quill, T. E. (1993). The ambiguity of clinical intentions. The New England Journal of Medicine, 329, 1039–1040.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Rietjens, J. A., Voorhees, J. R., Van Der Heide, A., & Drickamer, M. A. (2014). Approaches to suffering at the end of life: The use of sedation in the USA and Netherlands. Journal of Medical Ethics, 40, 235–240.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Rys, S., Deschepper, R., Mortier, F., Deliens, L., & Bilsen, J. (2015). Bridging the gap between continuous sedation until death and physician-assisted death: A focus group study in nursing homes in Flanders, Belgium. American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine, 32, 407–416.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Scanlon, T. M. (2000). Intention and Permissiblity: T. M. Scanlon. The Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume, 74, 301–317.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Sercu, M., Pype, P., Christiaens, T., Derese, A., & Deveugele, M. (2014). Belgian general practitioners’ perspectives on the use of palliative sedation in end-of-life home care: A qualitative study. Journal of Pain & Symptom Management, 47, 1054–1063.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, J. (2006). Intention in ethics. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 36, 187–224.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Sidgwick, H. (1907). The methods of ethics. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterckx, S., & Raus, K. (2017). The practice of continuous sedation at the end of life in Belgium. In D. A. Jones, C. Gastmans, & C. Mackellar (Eds.), Euthanasia and assisted suicide: Lessons from Belgium. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trankle, S. A. (2014). Decisions that hasten death: Double effect and the experiences of physicians in Australia. BMC Medical Ethics, 15, 26.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Van Der Heide, A., Onwuteaka-Philipsen, B. D., Rurup, M. L., Buiting, H. M., Van Delden, J. J., Hanssen-De Wolf, J. E., Janssen, A. G., Pasman, H. R. W., Rietjens, J. A., & Prins, C. J. (2007). End-of-life practices in the Netherlands under the euthanasia act. New England Journal of Medicine, 356, 1957–1965.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Van Der Heide, A., Van Delden, J. J. M., & Onwuteaka-Philipsen, B. D. (2017). End-of-life decisions in the Netherlands over 25 years. New England Journal of Medicine, 377, 492–494.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Woodward, P. (2003). Nancy Davis and the means-end relation: Toward a defense of the doctrine of double effect. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly, 77, 437–457.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Morten Magelssen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Magelssen, M., Shaw, J. (2020). Intentions of Physicians and End of Life Care Team. In: Emmerich, N., Mallia, P., Gordijn, B., Pistoia, F. (eds) Contemporary European Perspectives on the Ethics of End of Life Care. Philosophy and Medicine, vol 136. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-40033-0_21

Download citation