Abstract

Gilbertson et al present a considered analysis of the abstract problem of ‘sedation’ at the end of life,1 and it is reassuring to see the separation of multiple practises that are often grouped under the heading terminal sedation. In their work, the authors attempt to introduce and justify a new practice in the care of those dying with significant suffering—expanded terminal sedation (ETS). This analysis will not, however, help our colleagues at the bedside. Here, we will focus on the flaws which are most relevant to clinicians: jurisdiction, uncertainty and reversibility. The authors’ focus on a jurisdiction that does already allow medically assisted in dying confuses their analysis. For example, either an instance of their proposed ETS does amount to intentionally hastening death, in which case it should be treated as a means of euthanasia and practised only where that is permitted, subject to its limits and regulations; or it does not amount to intentionally hastening death, in which case there is no reason to specify such jurisdictions. To explain that the most controversial elements of terminal sedation have been tacitly ‘accepted’ by the society in question does not invalidate the concerns. It is beyond the scope of this response to explore these, but to us, …