The Use of Palliative Sedation to Treat Existential Suffering: A Scoping Review on Practices, Ethical Considerations, and Guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Though palliative sedation has been recognized as an acceptable practice in Canada for many years now, there is a lack of clinical research and guidelines pertaining to its use as a treatment of existential refractory symptoms in the terminally ill. OBJECTIVES: This scoping review aimed to survey the literature surrounding palliative sedation and existential suffering and to inform research, policy, and practice. METHODS: a scoping review following Arksey and O'Malley's framework was performed, spanning electronic databases of the peer reviewed and grey literature. Articles were screened for inclusion, and a thematic content analysis allowed for a summary of key findings. RESULTS: Out of 427 search results, 71 full text articles were obtained, 20 of which were included. Out of these articles, four themes were identified as key findings. These included: (1) Ethical considerations; (2) The role of the health care provider; looking specifically at the impact on nurses; (3) The need for multidisciplinary care teams; and (4) Existential suffering's connection to religiosity and spirituality. CONCLUSION: Palliative sedation to treat existential refractory symptoms was labelled a controversial practice. A shortage of evidence-based resources limits the current literature's ability to inform policy and clinical practice. There is a need for both qualitative and quantitative multi-center research so health care professionals and regional-level institutions have firm roots to establish proper policy and practice.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.091 | 0.282 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".