Ethical principles involved in care of dying patients, particularly in relation to - beneficence versus non-maleficence

The principles

Beneficence (acting in the patient's best interest) and non-maleficence (avoiding harm) can come into direct tension in end-of-life care - an intervention intended to help (beneficence) may itself cause suffering (violating non-maleficence), requiring careful balancing rather than automatic application of either principle alone
This tension is a recurring theme in decisions about treatment intensity near the end of life - whether to pursue further investigation/treatment, escalate to intensive care, or continue disease-directed therapy in a patient with limited remaining benefit

As a patient approaches death, many interventions that would clearly be beneficent earlier in an illness (aggressive treatment, resuscitation, artificial nutrition/hydration) may shift toward causing more harm/burden than benefit - the same intervention can move from net-beneficent to net-harmful as the clinical situation changes, requiring ongoing reassessment rather than a fixed, one-time judgement

The "double effect" principle is relevant here - an intervention given with the intent of relieving suffering (e.g. opioids for pain/breathlessness at the end of life) is ethically justified even if it carries a foreseen but unintended risk of hastening death, provided the intent is symptom relief, the dose is proportionate to the symptom, and there is no less harmful alternative available - this is ethically and legally distinct from euthanasia

Regularly reassess whether ongoing/escalating treatment remains net-beneficent as the clinical picture evolves, rather than continuing a treatment plan established earlier in the illness by default
Clear documentation of the clinical reasoning (intent, proportionality) behind symptom-control decisions near the end of life protects both the patient's interests and the treating team, particularly where opioid/sedative doses are being increased for symptom control

The doctrine/principle of double effect, treatment withdrawal/withholding, euthanasia/voluntary assisted dying (a distinct, separate legal and ethical framework where available, not to be conflated with proportionate symptom control)

The doctrine of double effect is frequently misunderstood as a loophole for hastening death - properly applied, it requires the dose/intervention to be proportionate to the symptom being treated and the intent to be genuinely therapeutic, not a means to end life

5 more sections, plus exam facts

Premium unlocks every note across every specialty, and the full exam fact library behind it.