Abstract
Recent years have witnessed a growing concern that terminally illpatients are needlessly suffering in the dying process. This has ledto demands that physicians become more attentive in the assessment ofsuffering and that they treat their patients as `whole persons.' Forthe most part, these demands have not fallen on deaf ears. It is nowwidely accepted that the relief of suffering is one of the fundamentalgoals of medicine. Without question this is a positive development.However, while the importance of treating suffering has generally beenacknowledged, insufficient attention has been paid to the question ofwhether different types of terminal suffering require differnt responsesfrom health care professionals. In this paper we introduce a distinctionbetween two types of suffering likely to be present at the end of life,and we argue that physicians must distinguish between these types if theyare to respond appropriately to the suffering of their terminally illpatients. After introducing this distinction and explaining its basis,we further argue that the distinction informs a (novel) principle ofproportionality, one that should guide physicians in balancing theircompeting obligations in responding to terminal suffering. As weexplain, this principle is justified by reference to the intereststerminally ill patients have in restoration, as well as in therelief of suffering, at the end of life.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.REFERENCES
Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of Bioemedical Ethics, 4th edn. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.
Breitbart W, Rosenfeld B. Physician assisted suicide: The influence of psychosocial issues. Cancer Control Journal 2000; 3(3): 1–10.
Cassell EJ. Diagnosing suffering: A perspective. Annals of Internal Medicine 1999; 131: 531–534.
Cassell EJ. The Nature of Suffering and The Goals of Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.
Chapman CR, Garvin J. Suffering: The contributions of persistent pain. The Lancet 1999; 353: 2233–2236.
Council on the Ethical and Judicial Affairs, American Medical Association. Decisions near the end of life. Journal of the American Medical Association 1992; 267(16): 2229–2223.
Dolye D. Have we looked beyond the physician and the psychosocial? Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 1992; 7: 302–311.
Illich I. Medical Nemesis: The Expropriation of Health. Toronto: Bantam Books, 1976.
Jacobsen PB, Breitbart W. Psychosocial aspects of palliative care. Cancer Control Journal 2000; 3(3): 1–12.
Jansen LA. Deliberative decision making and the treatment of pain. The Journal of Palliative Medicine 2001; 4(1): 23–31.
Krakauer EL. Sedation for intractable distress of a dying patient: Acute palliative care and the principle of double effect. The Oncologist 2000; 5(1): 53–62.
Miller RD, Walsh TD. Psychosocial aspects of palliative care in advanced cancer. The Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 1991; 6: 24–29.
Quill TE, Dresser R, Brock DW. The rule of double effect – a critique of its role in end-of-Life decision making. The New England Journal of Medicine 1997; 337(24): 1768–1771.
Quill T, Lo B, Brock DW. Palliative care options of last resort. Journal of the American Medical Association 1997; 278(23): 2009–2104.
Quill T, Brody RV. You promised me I wouldn't die like this. A bad death as a medical emergency. Archives of Internal Medicine 1995; 155: 1250–1254.
Quill TE, Byock I. Responding to intractable terminal suffering; the role of terminal sedation and voluntary refusal of food and fluids. ACP-ASIM end-of-life care consensus panel. Annals of Internal Medicine 2000; 132: 408–414.
Jansen LA, Sulmasy DP. Sedation, alimentation, hydration, and equivocation: Careful conversation about care at the end-of-life. Annals of Internal Medicine 2002; 136: 845–849.
Jansen LA. The moral irrelevance of proximity to death. The Journal of Clinical Ethics (in press).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jansen, L.A., Sulmasy, D.P. Proportionality, Terminal Suffering and the Restorative Goals of Medicine. Theor Med Bioeth 23, 321–337 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021209706566
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021209706566