Terminal Sedation
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 7-2011 Terminal Sedation Karen L Smith [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss Part of the Bioethics and Medical Ethics Commons Recommended Citation Smith, Karen L, "Terminal Sedation. " PhD diss., University of Tennessee, 2011. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/1127 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a dissertation written by Karen L Smith entitled "Terminal Sedation." I have examined the final electronic copy of this dissertation for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, with a major in Philosophy. John Hardwig, Major Professor We have read this dissertation and recommend its acceptance: David Reidy, Glenn Grabor, Nan Gaylord Accepted for the Council: Carolyn R. Hodges Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School (Original signatures are on file with official studentecor r ds.) TERMINAL SEDATION A Dissertation Presented for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree The University of Tennessee, Knoxville Karen L. Smith August 2011 Copyright © 2011 by Karen L. Smith All rights reserved. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are many people whom I ought to thank for their invaluable assistance to me in completing this dissertation. My family, Channing and Bailey, did without in numerous ways to allow me the time and mental space to accomplish my work. Dr. John Hardwig, remained supportive of my intense desire to work as a clinical ethicist and provided practical assistance throughout my education at the University of Tennessee and guidance in the art of philosophy. His direction, prodding and insightful questioning has always been directed at my improvement. I am grateful to the members of my committee, Dr. Reidy, Dr. Graber, and Dr. Gaylord, who somehow didn‘t give up on me throughout my long hiatuses. I also would be most remiss if I did not acknowledge the efforts my good friend, Susan Williams provided in her constant encouragement and helping to keep my ducks in a row during this process. But, mostly this work is dedicated to my mother, a nurse, who died too soon to realize what an inspiration she provided. iii ABSTRACT This dissertation will support full ethical endorsement of terminal sedation for those most urgently in crisis and need of beneficence, those who are dying and in the final hours or days and suffering. To clarify the practice I first detail ethical differences between euthanasia, physician assisted suicide and terminal sedation. Moreover, I identify new areas where harms and benefits need to be evaluated as affecting not only patients, but also families and caregivers. I evaluate the current practice to allow the development of ethical guidelines and greater consensus on deciding the hard cases. This work may also serve to assist those looking to enlarge the practice in the future with ETS for those with debilitating diseases or disability, but they are not my primary goal. Below is the standard I propose for moral allowability for the use of terminal sedation. I will refer to it often in the pages that follow simply as my standard. Terminal sedation is the appropriate and intentional use of medications (benzodiazepines and/or narcotics) to produce ongoing, deep unconsciousness upon 1) a terminal patient’s (or surrogates) request due to 2) suffering intractable pain or other distressing clinical symptoms intolerable to the patient when 3) death is expected within hours or days (less than two weeks) due to the terminal illness, injury, or disease. I offer two versions of initial guidelines for development of hospital policy. The first version outlines minimal guidelines that ought to be utilized to allow TS for patients who fit my standard. The minimal guideline is based upon the recommendations of the American Medical Association with some modifications. The guideline is admittedly restrictive in hopes of gaining wider societal support for a currently controversial practice. Secondly, I offer more moderate guidelines for policy that could become a standard in the future. It maintains the restrictive focus of the minimal guidelines and offers additional education and support to others which has yet to be broadly provided. The moderate guidelines would mark an important step forward for allowing more choices in dying and offering additional supports to those involved with dying patients. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page Table of Contents CHAPTER 1 ....................................................................................................................... 1 WHAT IS TERMINAL SEDATION? ................................................................................ 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 Background and History ................................................................................................. 5 The Problem of Definition ............................................................................................ 11 Drugs and Dosages ....................................................................................................... 20 An Evolving Consensus or More Conflict? .................................................................. 22 Is TS a type of Death? ................................................................................................... 25 Operational Definition .................................................................................................. 27 CHAPTER 2 ..................................................................................................................... 30 DISTINGUISHING TERMINAL SEDATION FROM ................................................... 30 PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED SUICIDE OR EUTHANASIA AND THE DOCTRINE OF DOUBLE EFFECT ........................................................................................................... 30 Euthanasia ..................................................................................................................... 31 Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS) ................................................................................ 36 Terminal Sedation ......................................................................................................... 42 The Doctrine of Double Effect ..................................................................................... 48 Additional Criticism against Terminal Sedation........................................................... 53 Alternate Evaluations .................................................................................................... 57 CHAPTER 3 ..................................................................................................................... 62 BENEFITS AND HARMS FOR THE PATIENT ............................................................ 62 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 62 Relief from Suffering .................................................................................................... 64 Sedation like Sleep ........................................................................................................ 66 Slippery Slope Concerns ............................................................................................... 67 Autonomy and Control ................................................................................................. 71 Nutrition and Hydration ................................................................................................ 72 Consent ......................................................................................................................... 75 Surrogate Consent ......................................................................................................... 78 Unproven Effectiveness ................................................................................................ 83 Existential Concerns ................................................................................................. 87 Suffering & Religion................................................................................................. 91 Special Concern for the Demented ............................................................................... 93 Responsibility in Dying & Death Roles........................................................................ 97 Teaching Compassion for the Dying ........................................................................ 99 Unburdening Others ................................................................................................ 100 v Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 102 CHAPTER 4 ................................................................................................................... 104 ETHICAL BENEFITS AND HARMS FOR THE FAMILY ........................................