Abstract
BACKGROUND: In 2016 a French law created a new right for end-of-life patients: deep and continuous sedation maintained until death, with discontinuation of all treatments sustaining life such as artificial nutrition and hydration. It was totally unprecedented that nutrition and hydration were explicitly defined in France as sustaining life treatments, and remains a specificity of this law. End- of-life practices raise ethical and practical issues, especially in Europe actually. We aimed to know how oncology professionals deal with the law, their opinion and experience and their perception. METHODS: Online mono-centric survey with closed-ended and open-ended questions in a Cancer Comprehensive Centre was elaborated. It was built during workshops of the ethics committee of the Institute, whose president is an oncologist with a doctoral degree in medical ethics. 58 oncologists and 121 nurses-all professionals of oncological departments -, received it, three times, as mail, with an information letter. RESULTS: 63/ 179 professionals answered the questionnaire (35%). Conducting end-of-life discussions and advanced care planning were reported by 46/63 professionals. In the last three months, 18 doctors and 7 nurses faced a request for a deep and continuous sedation maintained until death, in response to physical or existential refractory suffering. Artificial nutrition and even more hydration were not uniformly considered as treatment. Evaluation of the prognosis, crucial to decide a deep and continuous sedation maintained until death, appears to be very difficult and various, between hours and few weeks. Half of respondents were concerned that this practice could lead to or hide euthanasia practices, whereas for the other half, this new law formalised practices necessary for the quality of palliative care at the end-of-life. CONCLUSION: Most respondents support the implementation of deep and continuous sedation maintained until death in routine end-of-life care. Nevertheless, difficulty to stop hydration, confusion with euthanasia practices, ethical debates it provokes and the risk of misunderstanding within teams and with families are significant. This is certainly shared by other teams. This could lead to a multi-centric survey and if confirmed might be reported to the legislator.