Inappropriateness of using opioids for end-stage palliative sedation: a Dutch study.

To be able to distinguish end-stage palliative sedation from euthanasia without having to refer to intentions that are difficult to verify, physicians must be able to manage palliative sedation appropriately (i.e., see that death is not hastened as a result of disproportionate medication). In the present study, we assessed whether or not this requirement is met in the Netherlands. We sent a retrospective questionnaire to 1,464 medical specialists, general practitioners, and nursing home physicians in the Netherlands. Furthermore, we held two sets of 20 and 22 semi-structured in-depth interviews with general practitioners, internists, lung specialists, and nursing home physicians. Although most guidelines discourage the administration of opioids alone for purposes of palliative sedation, opioids alone were administered for 22% of all the patients reported upon. Those physicians who were more experienced, general practitioners, and physicians who had consulted a palliative care expert administered only opioids significantly less often than the other physicians. The interviewees reported difficulties in assessing the appropriateness of medication, feeling uncertain about the pharmacokinetics of drugs used in moribund patients. Given that no more than 2% of the respondents perceived palliative sedation to be used as a form of euthanasia and that the use of opioids alone was not associated with shorter survival rates, the inappropriate use of opioids can only be attributed to a lack of knowledge or skill and/or a tradition of alleviating refractory dyspnoea with the use of opioids and not as an intentional means of hastening death.

Interactive technology assessment and wide reflective equilibrium.

Interactive technology assessment (iTA) provides an answer to the ethical problem of normative bias in evaluation research. This normative bias develops when relevant perspectives on the evaluand (the thing being evaluated) are neglected. In iTA this bias is overcome by incorporating different perspectives into the assessment. As a consequence, justification of decisions based on the assessment is provided by stakeholders having achieved agreement. In this article, agreement is identified with wide reflective equilibrium to show that it indeed has the potential of justifying decisions. We work out several conditions for this agreement to be achievable and just.

Guidelines for using diagnostic imaging devices: an inference system.

This paper deals with optimising the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanners through the development of a new kind of clinical guidelines called 'substrate-specific protocols'. These protocols would link the descriptive elements of lesions to the most appropriate imaging techniques on the basis of the biophysics of MRI. As many lesions have elements in common, substrate-specific protocols could have a more general character and be more firmly based on evidence than conventional guidelines. We developed an inference model to enter, structure and retrieve knowledge acquired through a literature search. This proved a practicable and attractive approach. Its exactness, however, reveals the imperfections of medical knowledge and clinical practice. We conclude that it could be hard to establish an 'evidence basis' for clinical guidelines, if 'evidence based' means rooted in natural science.

Reducing normative bias in health technology assessment: interactive evaluation and casuistry.

Health technology assessment (HTA) is often biased in the sense that it neglects relevant perspectives on the technology in question. To incorporate different perspectives in HTA, we should pursue agreement about what are relevant, plausible, and feasible research questions; interactive technology assessment (iTA) might be suitable for this goal. In this way a kind of procedural ethics is established. Currently, ethics too often is focussed on the application of general principles, which leaves a lot of confusion as to what really is the matter in specific cases; in an iTA clashes of values should not be approached by use of such ethics. Instead, casuistry, as a tool used within the framework of iTA, should help to articulate and clarify what is the matter, as to make room for explication and consensus building.