scholarly journals To Die, to Sleep: US Physicians' Religious and Other Objections to Physician-Assisted Suicide, Terminal Sedation, and Withdrawal of Life Support

2008 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 112-120 ◽  
Author(s):  
Farr A. Curlin ◽  
Chinyere Nwodim ◽  
Jennifer L. Vance ◽  
Marshall H. Chin ◽  
John D. Lantos
Keyword(s):  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Life Support ◽  
Terminal Sedation ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide

Terminal Sedation: Palliative Care for Intractable Pain, Post Glucksberg and Quill

2003 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-76
Author(s):  
Rob McStay
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Life Support ◽  
Intractable Pain ◽  
Terminal Sedation ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
The Right ◽  
Artificial Life Support ◽  
Unconscious State

In 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court tacitly endorsed terminal sedation as an alternative to physician-assisted suicide, thus intensifying a debate in the legal and medical communities as to the propriety of terminal sedation and setting the stage for a new battleground in the “right to die” controversy. Terminal sedation is the induction of an unconscious state to relieve otherwise intractable distress, and is frequently accompanied by the withdrawal of any life-sustaining intervention, such as hydration and nutrition. This practice is a clinical option of “last resort” when less aggressive palliative care measures have failed. Terminal sedation has also been described as “the compromise in the furor over physician-assisted suicide.”Medical literature suggests that terminal sedation was a palliative care option long before the Supreme Court considered the constitutional implications of physician-assisted suicide. Terminal sedation has been used for three related but distinct purposes: (1) to relieve physical pain; (2) to produce an unconscious state before the withdrawal of artificial life support; and (3) to relieve non-physical suffering.

scholarly journals ASPEK ETIKA DAN LEGAL EUTHANASIA

2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Taufik Suryadi ◽  
Kulsum Kulsum
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
End Of Life ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Life Support ◽  
Medical Science ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Definition Of Death ◽  
Definition Of

Abstrak. Isu-isu tentang akhir kehidupan (end of life) selalu menarik untuk dibicarakan. Penentuan akhir kehidupan ini sering menjadi dilema bagi para dokter karena apabila dokter tidak memahami tentang pengambilan keputusan akhir hidup pasien ia akan menghadapi konsekuensi bioetika dan medikolegal. Terdapat beberapa istilah yang berkaitan dengan isu akhir kehidupan yaitu euthanasia, withholding and withdrawal life support, physician assisted suicide, dan  palliative care. Dengan berkembangnya ilmu kedokteran dan teknologi, definisi kematian menjadi sulit ditentukan karena dengan bantuan alat canggih kedokteran kehidupan ‘dapat diperpanjang’. Dari kenyataan inilah maka timbul pertanyaan serius: “Sampai kapan dokter harus mempertahankan kehidupan?. Apakah semua jenis pengobatan dan perawatan yang dapat  memperpanjang hidup manusia itu harus selalu diberikan?”.Dari permasalahan ini dapat didiskusikan tentang euthanasia ditinjau dari sudut bioetika dan medikolegal. Kata kunci: euthanasia, aspek bioetika, aspek medikolegal  Abstract .The issues of end of life are always interesting to discussed. This final determination of life is often a dilemma for doctors because if the doctor does not understand the final decision of the patient's life he will face the consequences of bioethics and medicolegal. There are several terms related to the issues of end of life that is euthanasia, withholding and withdrawal life support, physician assisted suicide, and palliative care. With the development of medical science and technology, the definition of death becomes difficult to determine because with the help of advanced medical devices 'life can be extended'. It is from this fact that a serious question arises: "How long should doctors maintain life? Are all types of cure and care that can extend the life of a human should always be given? "From this issues can be discussed about euthanasia in terms of bioethics and medicolegal. Keywords: euthanasia, bioethics aspect, medicolegal aspect

Medical house officers’ attitudes toward vigorous analgesia, terminal sedation, and physician-assisted suicide

2004 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 381-387 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauris C. Kaldjian ◽  
Barry J. Wu ◽  
James N. Kirkpatrick ◽  
Asha Thomas-Geevarghese ◽  
Mary Vaughan-Sarrazin
Keyword(s):  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Terminal Sedation ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide

Attitudes on terminal sedation, physician assisted suicide and euthanasia in oncology personnel, oncological patients and relatives

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9068-9068
Author(s):  
V. Maier ◽  
A. Kunitz ◽  
P. C. Thuss-Patience
Keyword(s):  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Terminally Ill ◽  
Medical Personnel ◽  
Terminal Sedation ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Management Options ◽  
Active Measurements ◽  
Legislative Body ◽  
Oncological Patients

9068 Background: This survey was performed to elucidate and compare the attitudes on end of life management of participants actively affected by/involved in oncology either as a doctor, nurse, patient or a relative. Methods: In this questionnaire based survey performed in Berlin, Germany, approved by the local ethics committee, 4 groups of participants (oncology doctors (D), oncology nurses (N), oncology patients (P) and relatives (R)) were asked about their attitudes on the management of terminally ill oncological patients. Participants were asked to mark their maximal ethically accepted management of a specific case from a series of 10 destinct management options (opt). These options were destilled into 4 groups ranging from sole pain control (SYM)(opt 1) at the bottom of the scale, through to terminal sedation (SED)(opt 2–4), physician assisted suicide (SUI)(opt 5–7) and finally active euthanasia (EUT)(opt 8–10) at the top of the scale. Each participant marked his attitude by putting himself in the role of the treating physician, in the role of the patient described in the case and in the role of a legislative body. Results: 435 questionnaires distributed, 185 returned (42.5%). Participants: D: 58 N: 61 P: 30 R: 36. All participants answering 1) in the role of a treating physician, 2) in the role of a terminally ill patient, 3) in the role of a legislative body. Table shows attitudes of a) all participants and of the 4 subgroups of participants b) doctors, c) nurses, d) relatives, e) patients. Conclusions: Only a minority of participants would themselves perform or assist in active life terminating measurements (SUI+EUT)(23%), more participants would wish for themselves active measurements (SUI+EUT)(30%) and significantly more participants are for legislation to allow active measurements (SUI+EUT)(47%). Medical personnel (doctors equally as nurses) are significantly more reluctant to assist/perform or wish for themselves active measurements (SUI+EUT) than relatives and patients. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Killing and Allowing to Die: Another Look

1998 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-64 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel P. Sulmasy
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Life Support ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Important Distinction ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
The U.S

One of the most important questions in the debate over the morality of euthanasia and assisted suicide is whether an important distinction between killing patients and allowing them to die exists. The U.S. Supreme Court, in rejecting challenges to the constitutionality of laws prohibiting physician-assisted suicide (PAS), explicitly invoked this distinction, but did not explicate or defend it. The Second Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals had previously asserted, also without argument, that no meaningful distinction exists between killing and allowing to die. That court had reasoned that if this were so, it would be discriminatory to allow persons on life support to end their lives by removing such treatment, while those who are not connected to life support would be denied similar access to death.

Palliative Care/Physician-Assisted Dying: Alternative or Continuing Care?

2006 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marion Malakoff
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
End Of Life ◽  
Advance Directives ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Life Support ◽  
Care Physician ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Dying Patients ◽  
Physician Assisted Dying ◽  
Wrongful Death

End-of-life care for dying patients has become an issue of importance to physicians as well as patients. The debate centers around whether the option of physician-assisted suicide cuts off, or diminishes the value of, palliative care. This ongoing attention makes the crafting of advance directives from patients detailing their end-of-life choices essential. Equally important is the appointment of a health care surrogate. The surrogate, when the patient is too ill to make decisions, should be empowered to make them in his stead. No American court has found a clinician liable for wrongful death for granting a request to refuse life support. An entirely separate issue is that of legalized physician-assisted suicide. As of this writing, only Oregon has made this legal (see Gonzales v. Oregon). It is likely that this issue will be pursued slowly through the state courts, making advance directives and surrogacy all the more crucial.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document