Sedation before ventilator withdrawal: can it be justified by double effect and called "allowing a patient to die"

J Clin Ethics. 1991 Summer;2(2):122-4.

Abstract

... Recognizing that sedation and ventilator withdrawal have a causal impact on a patient's death does not open the door to active euthanasia but helps resist it by showing clearly where the debate centers. The heart of the euthanasia issue is not whether providers play a causal role in patients' deaths. They obviously often do when they withdraw burdensome or futile treatment or provide comfort, and these actions can be morally justified in appropriate circumstances. The key point is whether we can morally justify physicians playing two stronger causal roles: providing drugs and information for suicide and doing something in order to kill their patients. Before we can agree with those ethicists who argue that one can justify assisted suicide and active euthanasia despite the moral tradition that has shunned these causal roles, they must clearly show that the human good -- the good of the professions and of society at large, as well as the good of patients -- will be better served by physicians assisting in suicide and giving lethal injections....

MeSH terms

  • Altruism
  • Beneficence
  • Catholicism
  • Decision Making
  • Double Effect Principle*
  • Ethical Analysis*
  • Ethics*
  • Euthanasia*
  • Euthanasia, Active*
  • Euthanasia, Passive*
  • Freedom
  • General Surgery
  • Homicide
  • Humans
  • Hypnotics and Sedatives*
  • Intention*
  • Motivation*
  • Pain
  • Patients
  • Personal Autonomy
  • Pharmaceutical Preparations*
  • Physicians
  • Religion
  • Right to Die
  • Risk
  • Risk Assessment
  • Stress, Psychological*
  • Suicide, Assisted
  • Terminal Care*
  • Theology
  • Treatment Refusal
  • Ventilators, Mechanical*
  • Withholding Treatment*

Substances

  • Hypnotics and Sedatives
  • Pharmaceutical Preparations