Title |
Ethics of neuroimaging after serious brain injury
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, May 2014
|
DOI | 10.1186/1472-6939-15-41 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Charles Weijer, Andrew Peterson, Fiona Webster, Mackenzie Graham, Damian Cruse, Davinia Fernández-Espejo, Teneille Gofton, Laura E Gonzalez-Lara, Andrea Lazosky, Lorina Naci, Loretta Norton, Kathy Speechley, Bryan Young, Adrian M Owen |
Abstract |
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. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 5 | 28% |
Canada | 2 | 11% |
Spain | 1 | 6% |
Singapore | 1 | 6% |
Ireland | 1 | 6% |
Netherlands | 1 | 6% |
Unknown | 7 | 39% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 10 | 56% |
Scientists | 4 | 22% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 17% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Canada | 2 | 2% |
United States | 1 | 1% |
Spain | 1 | 1% |
Unknown | 96 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 21 | 21% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 18% |
Researcher | 14 | 14% |
Student > Bachelor | 6 | 6% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 5% |
Other | 20 | 20% |
Unknown | 16 | 16% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 26 | 26% |
Psychology | 17 | 17% |
Neuroscience | 10 | 10% |
Social Sciences | 8 | 8% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 3% |
Other | 16 | 16% |
Unknown | 20 | 20% |