It is estimated that one third of the population in Western industrial countries suffers from constipation at least from time to time. Constipation may have somatopathic or functional causes. Furthermore, a great number of substances are known to cause medication-induced constipation, i.e. opioid-induced constipation is caused by linkage of the opioid to opioid receptors in the bowel and the central nerve system. Whenever possible, causal therapy should be undertaken. Patients in palliative care mostly suffer from chronic functional constipation. The treatment consists of basic measures and the application of laxatives. According to their mode of action, they are divided into bulk-forming laxatives, osmotic laxatives, stimulant laxatives, lubricating agents and others. Bulk-forming laxatives are not recommended for use in palliative care patients, for such patients are normally not able to take in the required amount of fluids. Osmotic laxatives are divided into (magnesium) salts, saccharine, alcohols and macrogols. Lactulose is the most popular saccharine laxative. Because of its side effects (flatulence, bloating and abdominal cramping), lactulose is not a laxative of our choice; instead, we prefer to give macrogol. Orally administered, macrogol is not metabolised and pH value and bowel flora remain unchanged. Macrogol hydrates hardened stools, increases stool volume, decreases the duration of colon passage and dilates the bowel wall that then triggers the defecation reflex. Even when given for some time, the effectiveness of macrogol will not decrease. Because of its high effectiveness and commonly good tolerance, macrogol has become the laxative of first choice in palliative care patients with all kinds of chronic constipation, if these patients are able to take in the necessary amount of fluids. From the general medical point of view, lubricating agents have become obsolete. In palliative care patients, however, they are still important laxatives for prophylactic treatment or therapy of constipation. Due to clinical experience, in palliative care a laxative ladder has proven successful.

The development of palliative medicine in inpatient units in Germany has been impressive in the last years. As a first step of quality assurance, a core documentation form was developed in 1996. In 2001, 55 of the 83 palliative inpatient units in Germany and one unit each in Switzerland and Austria participated in the third phase of the evaluation of the core documentation. A total of 1304 patients were documented consecutively in the 57 units for a period of up to three months. This study investigates the frequency of drugs used in palliative care units in Germany. During inpatient treatment, the most common drug classes were strong opioids (68% of the patients), nonopioids (59%), corticosteroids (32%), laxatives (31%), antiemetics (27%), gastric protection agents (24%), neuroleptics (19%), sedatives/anxiolytics (18%), antidepressants (16%) and diuretics (15%). These ten drug classes made up for 72% of all prescriptions in the palliative care units. The substances used most frequently were dipyrone (47% of the patients), morphine (42%), fentanyl (28%), dexamethasone (27%), metoclopramide (21%), sodium picosulfate (15%), haloperidol (13%), pantoprazole (11%), macrogol (11%), amtriptyline (11%), furosemide (10%), omeprazole (9%), lactulose (8%), rofecoxib (8%) and lorazepam (7%). The 15 most commonly used drugs accounted for 54% of the prescriptions in the palliative care units in Germany. Drug treatment was related to sex, age and functional status of the patients. Patients who died in a palliative care unit had received significantly more frequent doses of neuroleptics (P < 0.001), corticosteroids (P < 0.001), sedatives/anxiolytics (P < 0.001) and strong opioids (P < 0.001). This study is the first representative and systematic evaluation of drug treatment in palliative care units in a European country. Many of the 'top 15' drugs were drugs included in the list of essential drugs of the World Health Organisation though availability and cultural differences have an effect on the use of drugs, e.g., the high usage of dipyrone in Germany. Age and sex-related differences in drug therapy were seen, and more research is needed to recognize possible undertreatment of symptoms in subgroups of patients, e.g., treatment of depression in older or male patients.

In sharp contrast to similar surveys conducted in other countries, only a minority of 9.6% of the DGP physicians supported the legalization of EUT. The misuse of medical knowledge for inhumane killing in the Nazi period did not play a relevant role for the respondents' negative attitude towards EUT. Palliative care needs to be stronger established and promoted within the German health care system in order to improve the quality of end-of-life situations which subsequently is expected to lead to decreasing requests for EUT by terminally ill patients.

This study assessed the effect of opioid treatment on ventilation in dyspneic palliative care patients who received symptomatic treatment with strong opioids. The assessments measured changes in peripheral arterial oxygen saturation (SaO(2)), transcutaneous arterial pressure of carbon dioxide (tcPCO(2)), respiratory rate (f), and pulse rate (PF) during the titration phase with morphine or hydromorphone. The aims of the study were to verify the efficacy of opioids for the management of dyspnea, assess the effect on ventilation, and show whether nasal O(2) insufflation before opioid application leads to a decrease in the intensity of dyspnea. Eleven patients admitted to our palliative care unit were included in this prospective, nonrandomized trial. At admission, all patients suffered from dyspnea. tcPCO(2), SaO(2), and PF were measured transcutaneously by means of a SenTec Digital Monitor (SenTec AG, Switzerland). During O(2) insufflation, the intensity of dyspnea did not change. In contrast, the opioid produced a significant improvement in the intensity of dyspnea (P=0.003). Mean f decreased as early as 30 minutes after the first opioid administration, declining from 41.8+/-4.7 (35.0-50.0) to 35.5+/-4.2 (30.0-40.0), and after 90 minutes, to 25.7+/-4.5 (20.0-32.0) breaths/min. Other monitored respiratory parameters, however, showed no significant changes. There was no opioid-induced respiratory depression.