We read with interest the extended essay published from Riisfeldt and are encouraged by an empirical ethics article which attempts to ground theory and its claims in the real world. However, such attempts also have real-world consequences. We are concerned to read the paper’s conclusion that clinical evidence weakens the distinction between euthanasia and normal palliative care prescribing. This is important. Globally, the most significant barrier to adequate symptom control in people with life-limiting illness is poor access to opioid analgesia. (...) Opiophobia makes clinicians reluctant to prescribe and their patients reluctant to take opioids that might provide significant improvements in quality of life. We argue that the evidence base for the safety of opioid prescribing is broader than that presented, restricting the search to palliative care literature produces significant bias as safety experience and literature for opioids and sedatives exists in many fields. This is not acknowledged in the synthesis presented. By considering additional evidence, we reject the need for agnosticism and reaffirm that palliative opioid prescribing is safe. Second, palliative sedation in a clinical context is a poorly defined concept covering multiple interventions and treatment intentions. We detail these and show that continuous deep palliative sedation is a specific practice that remains controversial globally and is not considered routine practice. Rejecting agnosticism towards opioids and excluding CDPS from the definition of routine care allows the rejection of Riisfeldt’s headline conclusion. On these grounds, we reaffirm the important distinction between palliative care prescribing and euthanasia in practice. (shrink)

Clinical Ethics, Ahead of Print. This paper is a response to a recent BMJ Blog: ‘The duty to treat: where do the limits lie?’ Members of the Surrey Heartlands Integrated Care Service Clinical Ethics Group reflected on arguments in the Blog in relation to resuscitation during the COVID-19 pandemic.Clinicians have had to contend with ever-changing and conflicting guidance from the Resuscitation Council UK and Public Health England regarding personal protective equipment requirements in resuscitation situations. St John Ambulance had different guidance (...) for first responders.The situation regarding resuscitation led the CEG to consider ethical aspects of health care professionals’ responses to the need for resuscitation during COVID-19. Members agreed that professionals should, ideally, have the level of PPE required for an aerosol generating procedure. However, there was no consensus regarding professionals’ duty to care when this is not available. On the one hand, it was agreed that the casualty/patient’s interests regarding resuscitation should be prioritised due to professionals’ contract with the public and professional privilege. On the other hand, risk thresholds were considered relevant to individual decision-making and professionals’ duty to care. All agreed that decision-making should not be influenced by rewards or reprimands. It was agreed also that decisions to resuscitate should not be considered as moral heroism or supererogatory - regardless of PPE availability - but rather as ‘minimally decent’. We agreed that it may be acceptable for professionals, with good reasons, to opt out of resuscitation attempts and these should be reflected on and discussed before the event. (shrink)

Social, legal and health-care changes have created an increasing need for ethical review within end-of-life care. Multiprofessional clinical ethics committees (CECs) are increasingly supporting decision-making in hospitals and hospices. This paper reports findings from an analysis of formal summaries from CEC meetings, of one UK hospice, spanning four years. Using qualitative content analysis, five themes were identified: timeliness of decision-making, holistic care, contextual openness, values diversity and consensual understanding. The elements of an engaged clinical ethics in a hospice context is (...) not generally acknowledged nor its elements articulated. Findings from this study have the potential to explain some of the most challenging ethical problems and to contribute to their resolution. It may also guide future deliberation and raise CEC members' awareness of the recurrent issues and values of their CEC practice. (shrink)

A request to admit a hospital inpatient with motor neurone disease to the hospice generated unusual unease. Significantly, withdrawal of ventilation had already been planned. The presumption that ventilation would be withdrawn after transfer presented a dilemma. Should the hospice accept the admission? If so, should the hospice staff stop the ventilation, and then when and how? Debate centred on the continuity of best interests and the logistics of withdrawing ventilation. The factors making the request contentious identified competing interests within (...) hospice admission decision making that could detrimentally impact on patient care. (shrink)