An influential objection to the view that intentions are non-derivatively relevant to the moral permissibility of actions states that if intentions were relevant to permissibility in such a way, one would have to take them into account in decision making, which would be odd (in some morally relevant sense of ‘oddness’). The paper outlines and assesses three candidates for the oddness: that considering intentions in decision making is an unordinary practice, that it is impossible or conceptually confused, and that it (...) assigns intentions the weight as moral considerations that they intuitively do not have. The paper rejects the first two and shows that the third is probably what motivates most critics of the relevance of intentions who raise this objection. If this is correct, the objection is a non-starter as it assumes what it has to prove. Towards the end, it is argued that the objection does not serve as a plausible error theory either. (shrink)

A recent administrative law decision in Victoria, Australia, applied double effect reasoning in a novel way. Double effect reasoning has hitherto been used to legitimate treatments which may shorten life but where the intent of treatment is pain relief. The situation reviewed by the Victorian tribunal went further, supporting actions where a doctor agrees to provide pentobarbitone to a patient at some time in the future if the patient feels at that time that his pain is unbearable and he wants (...) to end his life. The offer to provide the drug was described as a palliative treatment in that it gave reassurance and comfort to the patient. Double effect reasoning was extended in this instance to encompass potentially facilitating a patient’s death. This extension further muddies the murky double effect reasoning waters and creates another challenge to this concept. (shrink)

Two studies reported in the Journal of Medical Ethics add to the growing body of qualitative evidence relating to the use of sedatives at the end of life.1 ,2 Respondents in the two studies affirm a number of important concerns, most of which have been elaborated in the philosophy and palliative care literature, relating to the use of sedation. There seems little doubt that the common moral thread to most of these concerns is the possibility that end-of-life sedation can resemble (...) assisted death.Most of the Dutch respondents in the paper by Reitjens et al1 were reported to believe that sedation does not hasten death. That is an oversimplification. Were it not for the potential to hasten death, I doubt we would be discussing the use of sedatives so frequently in ethics journals. It is true that there is little evidence that sedation significantly hastens death when doses are carefully titrated against symptoms—giving only that amount of a drug necessary to make the patient feel less distressed, and preserving consciousness as far as possible.3 Probably most sedative …. (shrink)

In assisted dying, the end-of-life trajectory is shortened to relieve unbearable suffering. Unbearable suffering is defined broadly enough to include cognitive (early dementia), psychosocial or existential distress. It can include old-age afflictions that are neither life-threatening nor fatal in the “vulnerable elderly”. The voluntary refusal of food and fluids (VRFF) combined with continuous deep sedation (CDS) for assisted dying is legal. Scientific understanding of awareness of internal and external nociceptive stimuli under CDS is rudimentary. CDS may blunt the wakefulness component (...) of human consciousness without eradicating internal affective awareness of thirst and hunger. Patients may suffer because of the slow dying process following dehydration and starvation. The difficulty to adequately control distress, without bringing the dying process to a rapid conclusion by lethal pharmacological interventions, can cause feelings of guilt among hospice and medical staff. Furthermore, the double-effect principle is not applicable in these situations because the primary objective of VRFF is to hasten death. Legal and societal debate should focus on sharpening the boundaries between assisted dying and palliative care. This separation is necessary to: 1) uphold trust in the patient-phyician relationship, and 2) preserve integrity and ethics of the medical profession. (shrink)

ZusammenfassungDie Palliative Sedierung als therapeutische Handlungsoption in anderweitig refraktären Behandlungssituationen wird in der Öffentlichkeit und in Fachkreisen in ihrer klinischen Wertigkeit grundsätzlich akzeptiert und weitgehend positiv konnotiert. Im Widerspruch dazu fallen sowohl die Quantität der empirischen Forschung als auch die Intensität der ethischen und klinischen Diskussion ins Auge, mit der konzeptuelle als auch durchführungsbezogene Aspekte der Palliativen Sedierung beschrieben und kontrovers erörtert werden. Anstatt eines distinkten Behandlungskonzeptes stellt sich hier eher ein komplexes Spektrum verschiedener Vorgehensweisen dar. Die folgende Übersichtsarbeit fasst (...) anhand der aktuellen Literatur zusammen, welche Aspekte im Kontext der Palliativen Sedierung als problematisch bewertet werden. (shrink)