Distancing sedation in end-of-life care from physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia

Lipuma equates continuous sedation until death (CSD) to physician-assisted suicide/euthanasia (PAS/E) based on the premise that iatrogenic unconsciousness negates social function and, thus, personhood, leaving a patient effectively 'dead'. Others have extrapolated upon this position further, to suggest that any use of sedation and/or opioids at the end of life would be analogous to CSD and thus tantamount to PAS/E. These posits sit diametrically opposite to standard end-of-life care practices. This paper will refute Lipuma's position and the posits borne from it. We first show that prevailing end-of-life care guidelines require proportional and monitored use of sedatives and/or opioids to attenuate fears that the use of such treatment could hasten death. These guidelines also classify CSD as a last resort treatment, employed only when symptoms prove intractable, and not amenable to all standard treatment options. Furthermore, CSD is applied only when deemed appropriate by a multidisciplinary palliative medicine team. We also show that empirical data based on local views of personhood will discount concerns that iatrogenic unconsciousness is tantamount to a loss of personhood and death.

The use of facemasks to prevent respiratory infection: a literature review in the context of the Health Belief Model

<p><b>INTRODUCTION</b>Acute respiratory infections are prevalent and pose a constant threat to society. While the use of facemasks has proven to be an effective barrier to curb the aerosol spread of such diseases, its use in the local community is uncommon, resulting in doubts being cast on its effectiveness in preventing airborne infections during epidemics. We thus aimed to conduct a literature review to determine the factors that influence the use of facemasks as a primary preventive health measure in the community.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>A search for publications relating to facemask usage was performed on Medline, PubMed, Google, World Health Organization and Singapore government agencies' websites, using search terms such as 'facemask', 'mask', 'influenza', 'respiratory infection', 'personal protective equipment', 'disease prevention', 'compliance' and 'adherence'. Findings were framed under five components of the Health Belief Model: perceived susceptibility, perceived benefits, perceived severity, perceived barriers and cues to action.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>We found that individuals are more likely to wear facemasks due to the perceived susceptibility and perceived severity of being afflicted with life-threatening diseases. Although perceived susceptibility appeared to be the most significant factor determining compliance, perceived benefits of mask-wearing was found to have significant effects on mask-wearing compliance as well. Perceived barriers include experience or perception of personal discomfort and sense of embarrassment. Media blitz and public health promotion activities supported by government agencies provide cues to increase the public's usage of facemasks.</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>Complex interventions that use multipronged approaches targeting the five components of the Health Belief Model, especially perceived susceptibility, are needed to increase the use of facemasks in the community. Further studies are required to evaluate the effectiveness of implemented interventions.</p>