Rady Mohamed Y, Verheijde Joseph L
Department of Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic Hospital, Mayo Clinic Arizona, 5777 East Mayo Boulevard, Phoenix, AZ 85054, USA.
Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2010 May;27(3):205-14. doi: 10.1177/1049909109348868. Epub 2009 Dec 14.
Published literature has not discerned end-of-life palliative versus life-shortening effects of pharmacologically maintaining continuous deep sedation until death (i.e., dying in deep sleep) compared with common sedation practices relieving distress in the final conscious phase of dying. Continuous deep sedation predictably suppresses brainstem vital centers and shortens life. Continuous deep sedation remains controversial as palliation for existential suffering and in elective death requests by discontinuation of chronic ventilation or circulatory support with mechanical devices. Continuous deep sedation contravenes the double-effect principle because: (1) it induces permanent coma (intent of action) for the contingency relief of suffering and for social isolation (desired outcomes) and (2) because of its predictable and proportional life-shortening effect. Continuous deep sedation should be distinguished from common sedation practices for palliation and characterized instead as physician-assisted death.
与在濒死的最后意识阶段缓解痛苦的普通镇静方法相比,已发表的文献尚未区分通过药物维持持续深度镇静直至死亡(即在深度睡眠中死亡)的临终姑息治疗与缩短生命的效果。持续深度镇静可预见地会抑制脑干生命中枢并缩短生命。持续深度镇静作为缓解生存痛苦的姑息治疗方法,以及在通过停用慢性通气或使用机械设备进行循环支持的选择性死亡请求中,仍然存在争议。持续深度镇静违反了双重效应原则,因为:(1)它为缓解痛苦和社交隔离(预期结果)而诱导永久性昏迷(行动意图),以及(2)因其具有可预见且成比例的缩短生命的效果。持续深度镇静应与用于姑息治疗的普通镇静方法区分开来,而应被定性为医生协助自杀。