Cargando…
Ethics of neuroimaging after serious brain injury
BACKGROUND: Patient outcome after serious brain injury is highly variable. Following a period of coma, some patients recover while others progress into a vegetative state (unresponsive wakefulness syndrome) or minimally conscious state. In both cases, assessment is difficult and misdiagnosis may be...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2014
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4031564/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24885720 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-15-41 |
_version_ | 1782317543143243776 |
---|---|
author | Weijer, Charles Peterson, Andrew Webster, Fiona Graham, Mackenzie Cruse, Damian Fernández-Espejo, Davinia Gofton, Teneille Gonzalez-Lara, Laura E Lazosky, Andrea Naci, Lorina Norton, Loretta Speechley, Kathy Young, Bryan Owen, Adrian M |
author_facet | Weijer, Charles Peterson, Andrew Webster, Fiona Graham, Mackenzie Cruse, Damian Fernández-Espejo, Davinia Gofton, Teneille Gonzalez-Lara, Laura E Lazosky, Andrea Naci, Lorina Norton, Loretta Speechley, Kathy Young, Bryan Owen, Adrian M |
author_sort | Weijer, Charles |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Patient outcome after serious brain injury is highly variable. Following a period of coma, some patients recover while others progress into a vegetative state (unresponsive wakefulness syndrome) or minimally conscious state. In both cases, assessment is difficult and misdiagnosis may be as high as 43%. Recent advances in neuroimaging suggest a solution. Both functional magnetic resonance imaging and electroencephalography have been used to detect residual cognitive function in vegetative and minimally conscious patients. Neuroimaging may improve diagnosis and prognostication. These techniques are beginning to be applied to comatose patients soon after injury. Evidence of preserved cognitive function may predict recovery, and this information would help families and health providers. Complex ethical issues arise due to the vulnerability of patients and families, difficulties interpreting negative results, restriction of communication to “yes” or “no” answers, and cost. We seek to investigate ethical issues in the use of neuroimaging in behaviorally nonresponsive patients who have suffered serious brain injury. The objectives of this research are to: (1) create an approach to capacity assessment using neuroimaging; (2) develop an ethics of welfare framework to guide considerations of quality of life; (3) explore the impact of neuroimaging on families; and, (4) analyze the ethics of the use of neuroimaging in comatose patients. METHODS/DESIGN: Our research program encompasses four projects and uses a mixed methods approach. Project 1 asks whether decision making capacity can be assessed in behaviorally nonresponsive patients. We will specify cognitive functions required for capacity and detail their assessment. Further, we will develop and pilot a series of scenarios and questions suitable for assessing capacity. Project 2 examines the ethics of welfare as a guide for neuroimaging. It grounds an obligation to explore patients’ interests, and we explore conceptual issues in the development of a quality of life instrument adapted for neuroimaging. Project 3 will use grounded theory interviews to document families’ understanding of the patient’s condition, expectations of neuroimaging, and the impact of the results of neuroimaging. Project 4 will provide an ethical analysis of neuroimaging to investigate residual cognitive function in comatose patients within days of serious brain injury. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4031564 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2014 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-40315642014-05-24 Ethics of neuroimaging after serious brain injury Weijer, Charles Peterson, Andrew Webster, Fiona Graham, Mackenzie Cruse, Damian Fernández-Espejo, Davinia Gofton, Teneille Gonzalez-Lara, Laura E Lazosky, Andrea Naci, Lorina Norton, Loretta Speechley, Kathy Young, Bryan Owen, Adrian M BMC Med Ethics Study Protocol BACKGROUND: Patient outcome after serious brain injury is highly variable. Following a period of coma, some patients recover while others progress into a vegetative state (unresponsive wakefulness syndrome) or minimally conscious state. In both cases, assessment is difficult and misdiagnosis may be as high as 43%. Recent advances in neuroimaging suggest a solution. Both functional magnetic resonance imaging and electroencephalography have been used to detect residual cognitive function in vegetative and minimally conscious patients. Neuroimaging may improve diagnosis and prognostication. These techniques are beginning to be applied to comatose patients soon after injury. Evidence of preserved cognitive function may predict recovery, and this information would help families and health providers. Complex ethical issues arise due to the vulnerability of patients and families, difficulties interpreting negative results, restriction of communication to “yes” or “no” answers, and cost. We seek to investigate ethical issues in the use of neuroimaging in behaviorally nonresponsive patients who have suffered serious brain injury. The objectives of this research are to: (1) create an approach to capacity assessment using neuroimaging; (2) develop an ethics of welfare framework to guide considerations of quality of life; (3) explore the impact of neuroimaging on families; and, (4) analyze the ethics of the use of neuroimaging in comatose patients. METHODS/DESIGN: Our research program encompasses four projects and uses a mixed methods approach. Project 1 asks whether decision making capacity can be assessed in behaviorally nonresponsive patients. We will specify cognitive functions required for capacity and detail their assessment. Further, we will develop and pilot a series of scenarios and questions suitable for assessing capacity. Project 2 examines the ethics of welfare as a guide for neuroimaging. It grounds an obligation to explore patients’ interests, and we explore conceptual issues in the development of a quality of life instrument adapted for neuroimaging. Project 3 will use grounded theory interviews to document families’ understanding of the patient’s condition, expectations of neuroimaging, and the impact of the results of neuroimaging. Project 4 will provide an ethical analysis of neuroimaging to investigate residual cognitive function in comatose patients within days of serious brain injury. BioMed Central 2014-05-20 /pmc/articles/PMC4031564/ /pubmed/24885720 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-15-41 Text en Copyright © 2014 Weijer et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Study Protocol Weijer, Charles Peterson, Andrew Webster, Fiona Graham, Mackenzie Cruse, Damian Fernández-Espejo, Davinia Gofton, Teneille Gonzalez-Lara, Laura E Lazosky, Andrea Naci, Lorina Norton, Loretta Speechley, Kathy Young, Bryan Owen, Adrian M Ethics of neuroimaging after serious brain injury |
title | Ethics of neuroimaging after serious brain injury |
title_full | Ethics of neuroimaging after serious brain injury |
title_fullStr | Ethics of neuroimaging after serious brain injury |
title_full_unstemmed | Ethics of neuroimaging after serious brain injury |
title_short | Ethics of neuroimaging after serious brain injury |
title_sort | ethics of neuroimaging after serious brain injury |
topic | Study Protocol |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4031564/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24885720 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-15-41 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT weijercharles ethicsofneuroimagingafterseriousbraininjury AT petersonandrew ethicsofneuroimagingafterseriousbraininjury AT websterfiona ethicsofneuroimagingafterseriousbraininjury AT grahammackenzie ethicsofneuroimagingafterseriousbraininjury AT crusedamian ethicsofneuroimagingafterseriousbraininjury AT fernandezespejodavinia ethicsofneuroimagingafterseriousbraininjury AT goftonteneille ethicsofneuroimagingafterseriousbraininjury AT gonzalezlaralaurae ethicsofneuroimagingafterseriousbraininjury AT lazoskyandrea ethicsofneuroimagingafterseriousbraininjury AT nacilorina ethicsofneuroimagingafterseriousbraininjury AT nortonloretta ethicsofneuroimagingafterseriousbraininjury AT speechleykathy ethicsofneuroimagingafterseriousbraininjury AT youngbryan ethicsofneuroimagingafterseriousbraininjury AT owenadrianm ethicsofneuroimagingafterseriousbraininjury |