No abstract

No abstract

Recent research suggests that a minority of patients diagnosed as vegetative using traditional behavioral assessments may be covertly aware. One of the most pressing concerns with respect to these patients is their welfare. This article examines foundational issues concerning the application of a theory of welfare to these patients, and develops a research agenda with patient welfare as a central focus. We argue that patients diagnosed as vegetative with covert awareness likely have sentient interests, and because sentient interests are sufficient for moral status, others have an obligation to take the welfare interests of these patients seriously. However, we do not view sentient interests as necessary for moral status, and thus it is possible that vegetative patients who lack such interests have moral status for other reasons. We propose four areas in which future research is needed to guide the ethical treatment of these patients: the assessment and management of pain; the development of quality of life assessments; end-of-life decision making; and enriching the day-to-day lives of these patients.

BackgroundPatient 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/DesignOur 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.

One year later the patient presented predominantly with deficit symptoms and profound deficits in memory and executive functions. It is likely that the intellectual deterioration around the time of puberty associated with fragile-X increased her vulnerability to a schizoaffective disorder and eventually to poor functioning.

BackgroundRecent estimates suggest an 11% prevalence of current late-life depression (LLD) and a lifetime prevalence of 16–20%. LLD leads to cognitive disturbance as well as a nearly two to three times increased risk of dementia. We conducted a recent randomized controlled trial (RCT) which demonstrated that Sahaj Samadhi meditation (SSM), an easy-to-implement, meditation-based augmentation strategy, led to higher rates of symptom remission when compared to treatment as usual (40.0 vs 16.3%; odds ratio, 3.36; 95% CI 1.06–10.64; p = 0.040). Here we present a protocol describing a two-site, blinded, RCT, comparing an SSM arm to an active-control arm – a Health Enhancement Program (HEP) intervention – in their ability to reduce depressive symptoms and improve executive functioning, among several other exploratory outcomes.Methods/designOne hundred and ninety-two (n = 192) participants with LLD will be recruited at two sites (London, ON, Canada, and Montreal, QC, Canada). Participants will undergo stratified randomization with regards to site and the presence of treatment-resistant-LLD (TR-LLD) or not, to either SSM or HEP. We will assess change in (1) depression severity using the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), (2) executive functioning, and (3) other exploratory physiological and mood-based measures, at baseline (0 weeks), post intervention (12 weeks), and 26 weeks after baseline. Raters, clinicians, and care providers will be blinded to group allocation while participants will be blinded to the study hypotheses.DiscussionThis study should more definitively assess whether SSM can be used as an augmentation strategy in routine clinical care for patients suffering from LLD and TR-LLD. If the effects of SSM are significantly better than HEP, it will offer support for the routine use of this intervention to manage LLD/TR-LLD and comorbid declines in executive dysfunction. The results of this study could also inform whether SSM can improve/prevent cognitive decline in LLD.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT03564041. Registered on 20 June 2018.

The ethical principle of autonomy requires physicians to respect patient autonomy when present, and to protect the patient who lacks autonomy. Fulfilling this ethical obligation when a patient has a communication impairment presents considerable challenges. Standard methods for evaluating decision-making capacity require a semistructured interview. Some patients with communication impairments are unable to engage in a semistructured interview and are at risk of the wrongful loss of autonomy. In this article, we present a general strategy for assessing decision-making capacity in patients with communication impairments. We derive this strategy by reflecting on a particular case. The strategy involves three steps: (1) determining the reliability of communication, (2) widening the bandwidth of communication, and (3) using compensatory measures of decision-making capacity. We argue that this strategy may be useful for assessing decision-making capacity and preserving autonomy in some patients with communication impairments.

No abstract