Relieving existential suffering through palliative sedation: discussion of an uneasy practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This article presents a discussion of the use of palliative sedation in response to intractable (not responsive to treatment) existential suffering. BACKGROUND: Patients suffering from a terminal illness are often faced with severe symptoms at the end of life. Although palliative sedation is sometimes used when no other options are effective in relieving unbearable pain or suffering, its use in response to intractable existential suffering in terminal illness remains controversial. DATA SOURCES: A literature search was conducted for published articles addressing the use of palliative sedation between 1996 and 2009 using established databases. DISCUSSION: Palliative sedation remains an uneasy practice. The debates have centred on ethical issues surrounding decisions to use sedation and on separating the intent of palliative sedation (relief of intolerable symptoms) from the intent of euthanasia (hastening death). There is lack of consensus in defining existential suffering. Consequently, there is limited understanding of how decisions are being made when using palliative sedation to treat intractable existential suffering. CONCLUSIONS: Given the confusion and uncertainty about ethical and clinical justifications for palliative sedation in treating existential suffering, we argue that a better understanding of the controversies and decision-making process is needed. Greater understanding is required to prevent palliative sedation from becoming a substitute for intensive treatment of this kind of suffering.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".