Disambiguating clinical intentions: the ethics of palliative sedation.
It is often claimed that the intentions of physicians are multiple, ambiguous, and uncertain-at least with respect to end-of-life care. This claim provides support for the conclusion that the principle of double effect is of little or no value as a guide to end-of-life pain management. This paper critically discusses this claim. It argues that proponents of the claim fail to distinguish two different senses of "intention," and that, as a result, they are led to exaggerate the extent to which clinical intentions in end-of-life contexts are ambiguous and uncertain. It argues further that physicians, like others who make life and death decisions, have a duty to get clear on what their intentions are. Finally, it argues that even if the principle of double effect should be rejected, clinical intentions remain ethically significant because they condition the meaning of extraordinary clinical interventions, such as that of palliative sedation.
Jansen
Lynn A
LA
The John J. Conley Department of Ethics at St. Vincent's, Manhattan, 153 West 11th Street (NR 815), New York, NY 10011, USA. ljansen@svcmcny.org
D026689:Ethical Analysis; D028601:Euthanasia, Active / Q000941:ethics* / Q000379:methods / Q000523:psychology; D006801:Humans; D006993:Hypnotics and Sedatives / Q000627:therapeutic use; D033182:Intention; D009294:Narcotics / Q000627:therapeutic use; D010146:Pain / Q000188:drug therapy; D010166:Palliative Care / Q000941:ethics* / Q000379:methods / Q000523:psychology*; D010686:Philosophy, Medical; D013727:Terminal Care / Q000941:ethics* / Q000379:methods / Q000523:psychology
D006993:Hypnotics and Sedatives; D009294:Narcotics