Continuous deep sedation and the doctrine of double effect: Do physicians not intend to make the patient unconscious until death if they gradually increase the sedatives?
Continuous deep sedation (CDS) has the effect of making the patient unconscious until death, and that it has this effect is clearly an undesirable aspect of CDS. However, some authors have recently maintained that many physicians do not intend this effect when practicing CDS. According to these auth...
Auteur principal: | |
---|---|
Type de support: | Électronique Article |
Langue: | Anglais |
Vérifier la disponibilité: | HBZ Gateway |
Journals Online & Print: | |
Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
Publié: |
Wiley-Blackwell
[2020]
|
Dans: |
Bioethics
Année: 2020, Volume: 34, Numéro: 9, Pages: 977-983 |
Classifications IxTheo: | NCH Éthique médicale |
Sujets non-standardisés: | B
proportionate palliative sedation
B gradual CDS B Intention B continuous deep sedation B doctrine of double effect B permanent unconsciousness |
Accès en ligne: |
Accès probablement gratuit Volltext (Verlag) Volltext (doi) |
Résumé: | Continuous deep sedation (CDS) has the effect of making the patient unconscious until death, and that it has this effect is clearly an undesirable aspect of CDS. However, some authors have recently maintained that many physicians do not intend this effect when practicing CDS. According to these authors, CDS is differentiated into two types; in what is called “gradual” CDS (or CDS as a result of proportionate palliative sedation), physicians start with low doses of sedatives and increase them only gradually, whereas in “rapid” CDS (or palliative sedation to unconsciousness), physicians rapidly administer a heavy dose that clearly induces unconsciousness from the beginning. The claim is that the physicians intend permanent unconsciousness only if they rapidly administer a heavy dose, but they do not intend it when the unconsciousness is the result of a gradual increase of sedatives. This paper attempts to refute these claims based on a close examination of the protocol of gradual CDS. If my argument is valid, the doctrine of double effect would not be useful in justifying most, if not all, cases of CDS. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1467-8519 |
Contient: | Enthalten in: Bioethics
|
Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1111/bioe.12792 |