Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24647491›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2014

Current debates on end-of-life sedation: an international expert elicitation study.

Evangelia Evie Papavasiliou, Sheila Payne, Sarah Brearley, EUROIMPACT

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04642677 (Randomized phasE II Study for Efficacy of healThcare prOvider's REcommened Communication With Sympathy in Terminally Ill Cancer Patients Treated With Palliative Sedation), which is not on this map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT04642677 phase2unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

Randomized phasE II Study for Efficacy of healThcare prOvider's REcommened Communication With Sympathy in Terminally Ill Cancer Patients Treated With Palliative Sedation

TypeinterventionalSponsorPusan National University Yangsan HospitalRan2020 to 2022Enrolled62ConditionsCommunication, Palliative SedationArmshealthcare provider's recommended communication with sympathy and printed paper
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Palliative sedation: beliefs and decision-making among Spanish palliative care physicians.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2020
    Article
  13. European Palliative Sedation Project.Journal of palliative medicine · 2020
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Changes in opinions on palliative sedation of palliative care specialists over 16 years and their effects on clinical practice.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2019
    Article
  16. Article
  17. An optimal design for the study of palliative sedation-making somewhat better pictures.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2018
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Evangelia Evie PapavasiliouInternational Observatory on End of Life Care, Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA1 4YT, UK, e.papavasiliou@lancaster.ac.uk.
Sheila Payne
Sarah Brearley
EUROIMPACT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeEnd-of-life sedation, though increasingly prevalent and widespread internationally, remains one of the most highly debated medical practices in the context of palliative medicine. This qualitative study aims to elicit and record the perspectives of leading international palliative care experts on current debates.

methodsTwenty-one professionals from diverse backgrounds, sharing field-specific knowledge/expertise defined by significant scholarly contribution on end-of-life sedation, were recruited. Open-ended, semi-structured interviews, following a topic-oriented structure reflecting on current debates, were conducted. Results were analysed using thematic content analysis.

resultsThree main aspects of sedation were identified and discussed as potentially problematic: (a) continuous deep sedation as an extreme facet of end-of-life sedation, (b) psycho-existential suffering as an ambivalent indication for sedation and (c) withdrawal or withholding of artificial nutrition and hydration as potentially life-shortening. On these grounds, concerns were reported over end-of-life sedation being morally equivalent to euthanasia. Considerable emphasis was placed on intentions as the distinguishing factor between end-of-life acts, and protective safeguards were introduced to distance sedation from euthanasia.

conclusionsThis study shows that, despite the safeguards introduced, certain aspects of sedation, including the intentions associated with the practice, are still under question, parallels being drawn between end-of-life sedation and euthanasia. This reaffirms the existence of a grey area surrounding the two practices, already evidenced in countries where euthanasia is legalized. More clarity over the issues that generate this grey area, with their causes being uncovered and eliminated, is imperative to resolve current debates and effectively inform research, policy and practice of end-of-life sedation.

Indexed as

AdultAgedDeep SedationEuthanasiaFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPalliative CareQualitative ResearchSuicide, AssistedTerminal Care

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.