Continuous Palliative Sedation for Existential Distress? A Survey of Canadian Palliative Care Physicians’ Views

2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Voeuk ◽  
Cheryl Nekolaichuk ◽  
Robin Fainsinger ◽  
Ann Huot
Author(s):  
Amy Nolen ◽  
Rawaa Olwi ◽  
Selby Debbie

Background: Patients approaching end of life may experience intractable symptoms managed with palliative sedation. The legalization of Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) in Canada in 2016 offers a new option for relief of intolerable suffering, and there is limited evidence examining how the use of palliative sedation has evolved with the introduction of MAiD. Objectives: To compare rates of palliative sedation at a tertiary care hospital before and after the legalization of MAiD. Methods: This study is a retrospective chart analysis of all deaths of patients followed by the palliative care consult team in acute care, or admitted to the palliative care unit. We compared the use of palliative sedation during 1-year periods before and after the legalization of MAiD, and screened charts for MAiD requests during the second time period. Results: 4.7% (n = 25) of patients who died in the palliative care unit pre-legalization of MAiD received palliative sedation compared to 14.6% (n = 82) post-MAiD, with no change in acute care. Post-MAiD, 4.1% of deaths were medically-assisted deaths in the palliative care unit (n = 23) and acute care (n = 14). For patients who requested MAiD but instead received palliative sedation, the primary reason was loss of decisional capacity to consent for MAiD. Conclusion: We believe that the mainstream presence of MAiD has resulted in an increased recognition of MAiD and palliative sedation as distinct entities, and rates of palliative sedation increased post-MAiD due to greater awareness about patient choice and increased comfort with end-of-life options.


2012 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 256-263 ◽  
Author(s):  
Siebe J Swart ◽  
Agnes van der Heide ◽  
Tijn Brinkkemper ◽  
Lia van Zuylen ◽  
Roberto Perez ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (6) ◽  
pp. 2211-2219 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sayaka Maeda ◽  
Tatsuya Morita ◽  
Masayuki Ikenaga ◽  
Hirofumi Abo ◽  
Yoshiyuki Kizawa ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
William S. Breitbart

Spirituality is important in the lives of patients with serious illnesses. Terminally patients may experience a number of spiritual issues, including lack of meaning, guilt, shame, hopelessness, loss of dignity, loneliness, anger toward God, abandonment by God, feeling out of control, grief, and spiritual suffering. Assessment of a patient’s spiritual beliefs, assessing the importance of spirituality in his or her life, exploring whether he or she belongs to a spiritual community, and offering chaplaincy referral or connection with the patient’s religious or spiritual leaders comprise essential components of a spiritual assessment. Psycho-oncologists should seek both specialized training, as well as referrals to appropriate sources, in order to help patients deal more effectively with the often complicated and painful spiritual issues that arise as a consequence of serious illness. Existential concerns are intrinsic to the human experience of facing mortality in palliative care settings. Patients diagnosed with terminal cancer often confront universal existential issues such as death anxiety, isolation, and meaninglessness. Psycho-oncologists must therefore be familiar with these existential concerns, their manifestations, and approaches to deal with existential issues. Psycho-oncologists have the unique ability to use a variety of psychotherapeutic interventions to alleviate existential distress in palliative care settings including cognitive therapies to help patients and families modify their appraisal of their lives with terminal illness, known as cognitive restructuring, life review techniques to facilitate a constructive reappraisal of life events, dignity-conserving therapies, and meaning-centered therapies have been shown to effectively reduce existential distress in this patient population.


2019 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas D Riisfeldt

My essay ‘Weakening the ethical distinction between euthanasia, palliative opioid use and palliative sedation’ has recently generated some critique which I will attempt to address in this response. Regarding the empirical question of whether palliative opioid and sedative use shorten survival time, Schofield et al raise the three concerns that my literature review contains a cherry-picking bias through focusing solely on the palliative care population, that continuous deep palliative sedation falls beyond the scope of routine palliative care, and that my research may contribute to opiophobia and be harmful to palliative care provision globally. Materstvedt argues that euthanasia ‘ends’ rather than ‘relieves’ suffering and is not a treatment, and that the arguments in my essay are therefore predicated on a ‘category mistake’ and are a non-starter. Symons and Giebel both raise the concern that my Kantian and Millian interpretation of the Doctrine of Double Effect is anachronistic, and that when interpreted from the contemporaneous perspective of Aquinas it is a sound ethical principle. Giebel also argues that palliative opioid and sedative use do meet the Doctrine of Double Effect’s four criteria on this Thomistic account, and that it does not contradict the Doctrine of the Sanctity of Human Life. In this response I will explore and defend against most of these claims, in doing so clarifying my original argument that the empirical and ethical differences between palliative opioid/sedative use and euthanasia may not be as significant as often believed, thereby advancing the case for euthanasia.


2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 8-12
Author(s):  
Hermioni L. Amonoo ◽  
Jennifer H. Harris ◽  
William S. Murphy ◽  
Janet L. Abrahm ◽  
John R. Peteet

Existential suffering is commonly experienced by patients with serious medical illnesses despite the advances in the treatment of physical and psychological symptoms that often accompany incurable diseases. Palliative care (PC) clinicians wishing to help these patients are faced with many barriers including the inability to identify existential suffering, lack of training in how to address it, and time constraints. Although mental health and spiritual care providers play an instrumental role in addressing the existential needs of patients, PC clinicians are uniquely positioned to coordinate the necessary resources for addressing existential suffering in their patients. With this article, we present a case of a patient in existential distress and a framework to equip PC clinicians to assess and address existential suffering.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document