Sulmasy Daniel P
Departments of Medicine and Philosophy, The Pellegrino Center for Clinical Bioethics, Kennedy Institute of Ethics, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA.
Theor Med Bioeth. 2018 Jun;39(3):171-180. doi: 10.1007/s11017-018-9441-4.
This special issue of Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics takes up the question of palliative sedation as a source of potential concern or controversy among Christian clinicians and thinkers. Christianity affirms a duty to relieve unnecessary suffering yet also proscribes euthanasia. Accordingly, the question arises as to whether it is ever morally permissible to render dying patients unconscious in order to relieve their suffering. If so, under what conditions? Is this practice genuinely morally distinguishable from euthanasia? Can one ever aim directly at making a dying person unconscious, or is it only permissible to tolerate unconsciousness as an unintended side effect of treating specific symptoms? What role does the rule of double effect play in making such decisions? Does spiritual or psychological suffering ever justify sedation to unconsciousness? What are the theological and spiritual aspects of such care? This introduction describes how the authors in this special issue wrestle with such questions and shows how each essay relates to the author's individual position on palliative sedation, as developed in greater detail within his contribution.
本期《理论医学与生物伦理学》特刊探讨了姑息性镇静这一问题，它在基督教临床医生和思想家中引发了潜在的关注或争议。基督教既肯定了减轻不必要痛苦的责任，又禁止安乐死。因此，问题就出现了：为减轻临终患者的痛苦而使其失去意识在道德上是否永远是允许的？如果是，在什么条件下？这种做法在道德上真的与安乐死有区别吗？是否可以直接旨在让临终者失去意识，还是只允许将失去意识作为治疗特定症状的意外副作用来容忍？双重效果原则在做出此类决定中起什么作用？精神或心理上的痛苦是否足以成为使人镇静至失去意识的理由？这种护理的神学和精神层面是什么？本引言描述了本期特刊的作者们如何应对这些问题，并展示了每篇文章如何与作者在其文稿中更详细阐述的关于姑息性镇静的个人立场相关联。
