Continuous Sedation Until Death Should Not Be an Option of First Resort

Susan D. McCammon, Nicole M. Piemonte

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Samuel H. LiPuma and Joseph P. DeMarco argue for a positive right to continuous sedation until death (CSD) for any patient with a life expectancy less than six months. They reject any requirement of proportionality. Their proposed guideline makes CSD an option for a decisional adult patient with an appropriate terminal diagnosis regardless of whether suffering (physical or existential) is present. This guideline purports to "empower" the patient with the ability to control the timing and manner of her death. This extends even to the option to "opt out" of the awareness and experience of dying and to avoid suffering altogether, even if one's symptoms and suffering could be effectively treated. We respond first with a critique of their terminology. We then turn to some purely practical considerations of how this guideline might be enacted in the current atmosphere of American hospice and palliative care medicine. We close with a consideration of one philosophical concern that might ground the discussion of risks, benefits, and alternatives necessary for informed consent.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)132-142
Number of pages11
JournalThe Journal of clinical ethics
Volume26
Issue number2
StatePublished - Jun 1 2015

Fingerprint

Guidelines
death
Hospice Care
Aptitude
proportionality
hospice
life expectancy
Life Expectancy
Informed Consent
Atmosphere
dying
Terminology
technical language
medicine
Pain
ability
experience
Palliative Medicine

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Continuous Sedation Until Death Should Not Be an Option of First Resort. / McCammon, Susan D.; Piemonte, Nicole M.

In: The Journal of clinical ethics, Vol. 26, No. 2, 01.06.2015, p. 132-142.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

McCammon, SD & Piemonte, NM 2015, 'Continuous Sedation Until Death Should Not Be an Option of First Resort', The Journal of clinical ethics, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 132-142.
McCammon, Susan D. ; Piemonte, Nicole M. / Continuous Sedation Until Death Should Not Be an Option of First Resort. In: The Journal of clinical ethics. 2015 ; Vol. 26, No. 2. pp. 132-142.
@article{cf113070a5a243b5854a6f8a289a2620,
title = "Continuous Sedation Until Death Should Not Be an Option of First Resort",
abstract = "Samuel H. LiPuma and Joseph P. DeMarco argue for a positive right to continuous sedation until death (CSD) for any patient with a life expectancy less than six months. They reject any requirement of proportionality. Their proposed guideline makes CSD an option for a decisional adult patient with an appropriate terminal diagnosis regardless of whether suffering (physical or existential) is present. This guideline purports to {"}empower{"} the patient with the ability to control the timing and manner of her death. This extends even to the option to {"}opt out{"} of the awareness and experience of dying and to avoid suffering altogether, even if one's symptoms and suffering could be effectively treated. We respond first with a critique of their terminology. We then turn to some purely practical considerations of how this guideline might be enacted in the current atmosphere of American hospice and palliative care medicine. We close with a consideration of one philosophical concern that might ground the discussion of risks, benefits, and alternatives necessary for informed consent.",
author = "McCammon, {Susan D.} and Piemonte, {Nicole M.}",
year = "2015",
month = "6",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "26",
pages = "132--142",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Ethics",
issn = "1046-7890",
publisher = "Journal of Clinical Ethics",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Continuous Sedation Until Death Should Not Be an Option of First Resort

AU - McCammon, Susan D.

AU - Piemonte, Nicole M.

PY - 2015/6/1

Y1 - 2015/6/1

N2 - Samuel H. LiPuma and Joseph P. DeMarco argue for a positive right to continuous sedation until death (CSD) for any patient with a life expectancy less than six months. They reject any requirement of proportionality. Their proposed guideline makes CSD an option for a decisional adult patient with an appropriate terminal diagnosis regardless of whether suffering (physical or existential) is present. This guideline purports to "empower" the patient with the ability to control the timing and manner of her death. This extends even to the option to "opt out" of the awareness and experience of dying and to avoid suffering altogether, even if one's symptoms and suffering could be effectively treated. We respond first with a critique of their terminology. We then turn to some purely practical considerations of how this guideline might be enacted in the current atmosphere of American hospice and palliative care medicine. We close with a consideration of one philosophical concern that might ground the discussion of risks, benefits, and alternatives necessary for informed consent.

AB - Samuel H. LiPuma and Joseph P. DeMarco argue for a positive right to continuous sedation until death (CSD) for any patient with a life expectancy less than six months. They reject any requirement of proportionality. Their proposed guideline makes CSD an option for a decisional adult patient with an appropriate terminal diagnosis regardless of whether suffering (physical or existential) is present. This guideline purports to "empower" the patient with the ability to control the timing and manner of her death. This extends even to the option to "opt out" of the awareness and experience of dying and to avoid suffering altogether, even if one's symptoms and suffering could be effectively treated. We respond first with a critique of their terminology. We then turn to some purely practical considerations of how this guideline might be enacted in the current atmosphere of American hospice and palliative care medicine. We close with a consideration of one philosophical concern that might ground the discussion of risks, benefits, and alternatives necessary for informed consent.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84943377269&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84943377269&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 26

SP - 132

EP - 142

JO - Journal of Clinical Ethics

JF - Journal of Clinical Ethics

SN - 1046-7890

IS - 2

ER -