AbstractWhile palliative medicine has a clear mandate to address the somatic suffering of patients, it remains less clear how palliative medicine should intervene-if at all-in the management of existential suffering. We detail the case of a patient with terminal gastrointestinal cancer. Through consideration of this case, we make determinations regarding what is ethically required, as well as ways in which these implications may generalize to appropriately similar cases. Specifically, we draw two conclusions. First, standard risk-benefit calculus must be recalibrated to account for the irrelevance of certain imagined harm in imminently terminal cases. Additionally, respect for autonomy in the context of a "good death" entails respecting consistent, well-considered preferences on the part of the patient.
Baldassarre et al. (Mon,) studied this question.