Continuous sedation and a request to die
Mrs Farrugia, 78, has advanced motor neurone disease and is cared for at home in a village outside Valletta by a hospice outreach team. She can no longer speak clearly, eat, or turn herself in bed, and she describes her breathlessness and choking episodes as unbearable. She has written a signed note asking that her suffering be ended, and she has told the consultant that she wants 'the injection that finishes it'. Her symptoms have not responded to two weeks of adjusted medication. Her son, who holds her medical proxy, insists that everything possible be done and has threatened to report the consultant; her daughter says her mother's wishes must be respected. The consultant believes that continuous deep sedation can relieve the distress, although at Mrs Farrugia's level of frailty it may shorten her life by days or weeks. Maltese law does not permit euthanasia. The hospital ethics committee meets in 48 hours and asks you for an ethical assessment.
1. Explain how the doctrine of double effect applies to the proposed continuous deep sedation, and how it differs from euthanasia in this case.
Read the worked answer
The doctrine holds that an action with both a good and a bad foreseeable effect may be permissible when four conditions are met: the act itself is not wrong; the intention is the good effect only; the bad effect is not the means by which the good effect is achieved; and the good effect is proportionate to the bad.
Applying it. (1) Administering sedative medication to relieve refractory symptoms is a normal medical act, not in itself wrong. (2) The consultant's intention is relief of breathlessness and choking distress, not the patient's death. (3) This is the crucial condition: the relief comes from the sedation itself, not from the shortening of life, so the death is a foreseen side effect rather than the instrument of relief. (4) The benefit - relief of suffering described as unbearable, in a patient with advanced disease and a short prognosis - is proportionate to a foreshortening of days or weeks.
Contrast with euthanasia. In euthanasia the intention is death, death is precisely the means by which suffering ends, and the act is unlawful in Malta. The distinction therefore rests on intention and causal structure, not on the dose.
Caveat worth stating. Where sedation is deep and continued until death, the distinction can look thin in practice. The safeguards are proportionality review, consent or a documented best-interests decision, and adherence to palliative-care guidelines - which is why the committee should ask for a second palliative opinion rather than simply approve.
2. Is respect for Mrs Farrugia's autonomy a decisive reason to end her life deliberately, as she asks? Argue with reference to autonomy and at least one competing principle.
Read the worked answer
The case for treating autonomy as decisive. She is an adult with capacity, her request is repeated and written, and her condition is irreversible and experienced as intolerable. Respect for persons means that competent people decide what happens to their bodies, including refusing treatment that would prolong life. If we honour a refusal of life-sustaining treatment, why not a request for death?
The counter-arguments. First, there is a moral difference between allowing a disease to take its course and deliberately killing: a request for euthanasia asks the doctor to become the agent of death, which conflicts with the professional commitment not to kill and with the law. Second, autonomy is relational: requests made in severe distress, in a setting where the patient may feel a burden, are not automatically free of pressure, and the patient's own note is not the same as a sustained, explored wish. Third, legalisation protects some and endangers others - the frail, the depressed, the poor - which is a societal consideration, not a paternalistic one.
Reaching a judgement. Autonomy is decisive for refusing treatment, but not sufficient on its own to require a doctor to end a life. It is, however, decisive in a different sense: her voice must govern the goals of care, so the consultant may not impose burdensome treatment she has refused. The duty is to take her request seriously, not to grant it: explore depression and fear, offer sedation, provide spiritual and psychological support, and document her wishes. Refusing euthanasia while failing to relieve suffering would be the indefensible position.
3. How should the consultant respond to the disagreement between the son and daughter, and what weight should the proxy's view carry?
Read the worked answer
The proxy's authority is limited. A medical proxy decides as the patient would have decided, or in her best interests, when she cannot decide for herself. Mrs Farrugia can still express a clear and consistent wish. A contemporaneous competent wish outranks a proxy's substitute judgement, so the son cannot veto sedation because he disagrees with his mother.
Why the son's view still matters. He is not an obstacle to be managed. His insistence on 'everything possible' often expresses grief, fear of abandonment, or a misreading of what 'everything' means. He may believe sedation is being used to hasten death. He also has a legitimate interest in his mother's care and a right to be heard.
What the consultant should do. Hold a joint meeting with both children, explain the diagnosis and prognosis plainly, explain what sedation does and does not do, and correct any misunderstanding that it is euthanasia. Ask the son what he is most afraid of. Offer time with the palliative team and, if needed, a mediator or the hospital's patient representative. Keep Mrs Farrugia at the centre of the conversation, using her own words.
If disagreement persists. The ethics committee can review, but it should be clear that the patient is the decision-maker for her own treatment goals. Document the discussion, and continue to involve the son in care - excluding him would deepen the conflict and harm the family after her death.