Scholarlink

<p>Withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments in the intensive care unit most often culminates into the discontinuation of mechanical ventilation and removal of the endotracheal tube or “terminal extubation.” Standards of practice call for the&#xa0;<i>appropriate</i>&#xa0;use of analgesia and sedation before, during and after extubation with an explicit goal to relieve suffering but not to hasten death. Patients subjected to this procedure are exposed to variable pharmacologic agents, modes, and doses, without any knowledge or monitoring of what these patients are experiencing. This practice seems to rest on contestable assumptions regarding the reliability of bedside examination, the experiential states of unresponsive patients, and the scope of the doctrine of double effect; instead, I argue for palliative general anesthesia in order to safeguard against potential suffering at the end of life. I employ philosophical notions of harm to justify the normative status of palliative anesthesia, in conjunction with contemporary evidence as it relates to the phenomena of covert consciousness and cognitive-motor dissociation. If this analysis is correct, then it may serve as a valid challenge toward current practice without having engaged into controversial debates over the soundness of the doctrine of double effect, or euthanasia.&#xa0;<i>Primun non nocere</i> offers the strongest justification for general anesthesia when terminal extubation is planned.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Palliative General Anesthesia at Terminal Extubation: “Go Gentle into that Good Night”

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年3月3日

查看全文
  • Christos Lazaridis

摘要

Withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments in the intensive care unit most often culminates into the discontinuation of mechanical ventilation and removal of the endotracheal tube or “terminal extubation.” Standards of practice call for the appropriate use of analgesia and sedation before, during and after extubation with an explicit goal to relieve suffering but not to hasten death. Patients subjected to this procedure are exposed to variable pharmacologic agents, modes, and doses, without any knowledge or monitoring of what these patients are experiencing. This practice seems to rest on contestable assumptions regarding the reliability of bedside examination, the experiential states of unresponsive patients, and the scope of the doctrine of double effect; instead, I argue for palliative general anesthesia in order to safeguard against potential suffering at the end of life. I employ philosophical notions of harm to justify the normative status of palliative anesthesia, in conjunction with contemporary evidence as it relates to the phenomena of covert consciousness and cognitive-motor dissociation. If this analysis is correct, then it may serve as a valid challenge toward current practice without having engaged into controversial debates over the soundness of the doctrine of double effect, or euthanasia. Primun non nocere offers the strongest justification for general anesthesia when terminal extubation is planned.