Advertisement

Neurocritical Care

, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp 33–41 | Cite as

Withdrawal of Life-Sustaining Treatments in Perceived Devastating Brain Injury: The Key Role of Uncertainty

  • Christos LazaridisEmail author
Ethical Matters

Abstract

Background

Withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment (WOLST) is the leading proximate cause of death in patients with perceived devastating brain injury (PDBI). There are reasons to believe that a potentially significant proportion of WOLST decisions, in this setting, are premature and guided by a number of assumptions that falsely confer a sense of certainty.

Method

This manuscript proposes that these assumptions face serious challenges, and that we should replace unwarranted certainty with an appreciation for the great degree of multi-dimensional uncertainty involved. The article proceeds by offering a taxonomy of uncertainty in PDBI and explores the key role that uncertainty as a cognitive state, may play into how WOLST decisions are reached.

Conclusion

In order to properly share decision-making with families and surrogates of patients with PDBI, we will have to acknowledge, understand, and be able to communicate the great degree of uncertainty involved.

Keywords

Brain injury Decision-making Disability Chronic conditions and rehabilitation End-of-life issues 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This paper was greatly improved by the careful comments, corrections, and advice given to me by L. Syd M Johnson and Sunil Kothari, to whom I am most grateful. For helpful discussion of various parts of this paper, I would like to thank audiences at the Disorders of Consciousness Program of the Texas Institute for Rehabilitation and Research (TIRR) Memorial Hermann, and at the Neuroscience in Intensive Care International Symposium (NICIS) 2018.

Author Contributions

Dr. Lazaridis conceived the article topic, wrote and revised the draft.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.

Source of Support

No funding has been received in relation to this manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    Mayer SA, Kossoff SB. Withdrawal of life support in the neurological intensive care unit. Neurology. 1999;52:1602–9.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Becker KJ, Baxter AB, Cohen WA, et al. Withdrawal of support in intracerebral hemorrhage may lead to self-fulfilling prophecies. Neurology. 2001;56:766–72.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Turgeon AF, Lauzier F, Simard JF, et al. Mortality associated with withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy for patients with severe traumatic brain injury: a Canadian multicenter cohort study. Can Med Assoc J. 2011;183:1581–8.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Verkade MA, Epker JL, Nieuwenhoff MD, Bakker J, Kompanje EJ. Withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment in a mixed intensive care unit: most common in patients with catastropic brain injury. Neurocrit Care. 2012;16(1):130–5.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Côte N, Turgeon AF, Lauzier F, et al. Factors associated with the withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies in patients with severe traumatic brain injury: a multicenter cohort study. Neurocrit Care. 2013;18(1):154–60.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Izzy S, Compton R, Carandang R, Hall W, Muehlschlegel S. Self-fulfilling prophecies through withdrawal of care: do they exist in traumatic brain injury, too? Neurocrit Care. 2013;19:347–63.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Geurts M, Macleod MR, van Thiel GJ, van Gijn J, Kappelle LJ, van der Worp HB. End-of-life decisions in patients with severe acute brain injury. Lancet Neurol. 2014;13(5):515–24.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Souter MJ, Blissitt PA, Blosser S, et al. Recommendations for the critical care management of devastating brain injury: prognostication, psychosocial, and ethical management: a position statement for healthcare professionals from the neurocritical care society. Neurocrit Care. 2015;23(1):4–13.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Harvey D, Butler J, Groves J, et al. Management of perceived devastating brain injury after hospital admission: a consensus statement from stakeholder professional organizations. Br J Anaesth. 2018;120(1):138–45.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wilkinson D. Death or disability: the Carmentis machine and decision-making for critically ill children. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Giacino JT, Fins JJ, Laureys S, Schiff ND. Disorders of consciousness after acquired brain injury: the state of the science. Nat Rev Neurol. 2014;10(2):99–114.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schnakers C, Vanhaudenhuyse A, Giacino J, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of the vegetative and minimally conscious state: clinical consensus versus standardized neurobehavioral assessment. BMC Neurol. 2009;9:35.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Monti MM, Vanhaudenhuyse A, Coleman MR, et al. Willful modulation of brain activity in disorders of consciousness. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(7):579–89.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Edlow BL, Chatelle C, Spencer CA, et al. Early detection of consciousness in patients with acute severe traumatic brain injury. Brain. 2017;140(9):2399–414.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cruse D, Chennu S, Chatelle C, Bekinschtein TA, Fernández-Espejo D, Pickard JD, Laureys S, Owen AM. Bedside detection of awareness in the vegetative state: a cohort study. Lancet. 2011;378(9809):2088–94.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kondziella D, Friberg CK, Frokjaer VG, Fabricius M, Møller K. Preserved consciousness in vegetative and minimal conscious states: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2016;87(5):485–92.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schiff ND, Fins JJ. Brain death and disorders of consciousness. Curr Biol. 2016;26(13):R572–6.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bernat JL. Chronic disorders of consciousness. Lancet. 2006;367:1181–92.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bernat JL. Prognostic limitations of syndromic diagnosis in disorders of consciousness. Am J Bioeth Neurosci. 2016;7(1):46–8.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Klein C. Consciousness, intention, and command-following in the vegetative state. Br J Philos Sci. 2015;68(1):27–54.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Laureys S, Celesia GG, Cohadon F, et al. Unresponsive wakefulness syndrome: a new name for the vegetative state or apallic syndrome. BMC Med. 2010;8(1):68.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Katz DI, Polyak M, Coughlan D, Nichols M, Roche A. Natural history of recovery from brain injury after prolonged disorders of consciousness: outcome of patients admitted to inpatient rehabilitation with 1–4 years follow-up. Prog Brain Res. 2009;177:73–88.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Steppacher I, Kaps M, Kissler J. Will time heal? a long term follow up of severe disorders of consciousness. Ann Clin Transl Neurol. 2014;1(6):401–8.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Steppacher I, Kaps M, Kissler J. Against the odds: a case study of recovery from coma after devastating prognosis. Ann Clin Transl Neurol. 2015;3(1):61–5.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Monti MM. Cognition in the vegetative state. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2012;8:431–54.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Williams B. Ethics and the limits of philosophy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1985.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Feltz A, Samayoa S. Heuristics and life-sustaining treatments. J Bioeth Inq. 2012;9(4):443–55.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Watt DF, Pincus DI. Neural substrates of consciousness: implications for clinical psychiatry. In: Panksepp J, editor. Textbook of biological psychiatry. Hoboken: Wiley-Liss Incorporated; 2004. p. 75–110.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bayne T, Hohwy J, Owen AM. Reforming the taxonomy in disorders of consciousness. Ann Neurol. 2017;82(6):866–72.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Naccache L. Minimally conscious state or cortically mediated state? Brain. 2018;141(4):949–60.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wilkinson D. The self-fulfilling prophecy in intensive care. Theor Med Bioeth. 2009;30(6):401–10.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zahuranec DB, Morgenstern LB, Sánchez BN, et al. Do-not-resuscitate orders and predictive models after intracerebral hemorrhage. Neurology. 2010;75(7):626–33.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Koch PM, Lazaridis C. What does it mean for a critically ill patient to fare well? Intensive Care Med. 2017;43(10):1518–9.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Albrecht GL, Devlieger PJ. The disability paradox: high quality of life against all odds. Soc Sci Med. 1999;48:977–88.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ubel PA, Loewenstein G, Schwarz N, Smith D. Misimagining the unimaginable: the disability paradox and health care decision making. Health Psychol. 2005;24(Suppl):S57–62.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Johnson LSM. Stable value sets, psychological well-being, and the disability paradox: ramifications for assessing decision making capacity. Am J Bioeth Neurosci. 2013;4(4):24–5.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Klein A, Kuehner C, Schwarz S. Attitudes in the general population towards hemi-craniectomy for middle cerebral artery (MCA) infarction. A population-based survey. Neurocrit Care. 2012;16:456–61.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bruno MA, Bernheim JL, Ledoux D, Pellas F, Demertzi A, Laureys S. A survey on self-assessed well-being in a cohort of chronic locked-in syndrome patients: happy majority, miserable minority. Br Med J. 2011;23(1):e000039.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Cochrane TI. Unnecessary time pressure in refusal of life sustaining therapies: fear of missing the opportunity to die. Am J Bioeth. 2009;9(4):47–54.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kitzinger J, Kitzinger C. The ‘window of opportunity’ for death after severe brain injury: family experiences. Sociol Health Illn. 2013;35(7):1095–112.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Johnson LSM. Inference and inductive risk in disorders of consciousness. Am J Bioeth Neurosci. 2016;7(1):35–43.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Shepherd J. Moral conflict and the minimal conscious state. In: Sinnott-Armstrong W, editor. Consciousness after severe brain damage: medical, legal, ethical, and philosophical perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2016.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Creutzfeldt CJ, Holloway RG. Treatment decisions after severe stroke: uncertainty and biases. Stroke. 2012;43(12):3405–8.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Blumenthal-Barby JS, Krieger H. Cognitive biases and heuristics in decision-making: a critical review using a systematic search strategy. Med Decis Making. 2015;35(4):539–57.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Blumenthal-Barby JS. Biases and heuristics in decision making and their impact on autonomy. Am J Bioeth. 2016;16(5):5–15.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Zier LS, Sottile PD, Hong SY, Weissfield LA, White DB. Surrogate decision makers’ interpretation of prognostic information: a mixed-methods study. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156:360–6.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Granger CV, Carlin M, Diaz P, et al. Medical necessity: is current documentation practice and payment denial limiting access to inpatient rehabilitation? Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;88(9):755–65.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Whyte J, Nakase-Richardson R. Disorders of consciousness: outcomes, comorbidities and care needs. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;94:1851–4.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Relyea-Chew A, Hollingworth W, Chan L, Comstock BA, Overstreet KA, Jarvik JG. Personal bankruptcy after traumatic brain or spinal cord injury: the role of medical debt. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;90(3):413–9.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of biomedical ethics. New York: Oxford University Press; 2009.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Hemphill JC 3rd, White DB. Clinical nihilism in neuroemergencies. Emerg Med Clin North Am. 2009;27(27–37):7–8.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Gendler T. Alief and belief. J Philos. 2008;105(10):634–63.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Brownstein M. Implicit bias. In: Zalta EN, editor. The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford University, CA: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; 2017.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    McMahan J. The ethics of killing: problems at the margins of life. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2002. p. 2002.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Fins JJ. Rights come to mind: brain injury, ethics and the struggle for consciousness. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2015.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Fins JJ, Wright MS. Rights language and disorders of consciousness: a call for advocacy. Brain Inj. 2018;32(5):670–4.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Wilkinson D, Petrou S, Savulescu J. Expensive care? resource-based thresholds for potentially inappropriate treatment in intensive care. Monash Bioeth Rev 2018; Jan 18 (Epub ahead of print).Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Mishel MH. Perceived uncertainty and stress in illness. Res Nurs Health. 1984;7(3):163–71.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Mishel MH. Uncertainty in illness. Image J Nurs Scholarsh. 1988;20(4):225–32.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Etkind SN, Koffman J. Approaches to managing uncertainty in people with life-limiting conditions: role of communication and palliative care. Postgrad Med J. 1089;2016(92):412–7.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Camerer C, Weber M. Recent developments in modeling preferences: uncertainty and ambiguity. J Risk Uncertain. 1992;5:325–70.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Smithson M. Conflict aversion: preference for ambiguity vs. conflict in sources and evidence. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1999;79(3):179–98.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Pushkarskaya H, Smithson M, Joseph JE, Corbly C, Levy I. Neural correlates of decision-making under ambiguity and conflict. Front Behav Neurosci. 2015;27(9):325.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Turgeon AF, Lauzier F, Burns KE, et al. Determination of neurologic prognosis and clinical decision making in adult patients with severe traumatic brain injury: a survey of Canadian intensivists, neurosurgeons, and neurologists. Crit Care Med. 2013;41(4):1086–93.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Hwang DY, Yagoda D, Perrey HM, et al. Assessment of satisfaction with care among family members of survivors in a neuroscience intensive care unit. J Neurosci Nurs J Am Assoc Neurosci Nurses. 2014;46:106–16.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Muehlschlegel S, Shutter L, Col N, Goldberg R. Decision aids and shared decision-making in neurocritical care: an unmet need in our NeuroICUs. Neurocrit Care. 2015;23(1):127–30.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Norton SA, Tilden VP, Tolle SW, Nelson CA, Eggman ST. Life support withdrawal: communication and conflict. Am J Crit Care. 2003;12:548–55.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Lind R, Lorem GF, Nortvedt P, Hevrøy O. Family members’ experiences of “wait and see” as a communication strategy in end-of-life decisions. Intensive Care Med. 2011;37:1143–50.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Dale CM, Sinuff T, Morrison LJ, Golan E, Scales DC. Understanding early decisions to withdraw life-sustaining therapy in cardiac arrest survivors. A qualitative investigation. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2016;13(7):1115–22.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Bernacki RE, Block SD. American college of physicians high value care task force. Communication about serious illness care goals: a review and synthesis of best practices. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174:1994–2003.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Holloway RG, Gramling R, Kelly AG. Estimating and communicating prognosis in advanced neurologic disease. Neurology. 2013;80:764–72.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Han PK, Klein WM, Arora NK. Varieties of uncertainty in health care: a conceptual taxonomy. Med Decis Mak. 2011;31(6):828–38.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Fins JJ. Mosaic decision-making and re-emergent agency after severe brain injury. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2018;27(1):163–74.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Chatfield DA, Lee S, Cowley J, Kitzinger C, Kitzinger J, Menon DK. Is there a broader role for independent mental capacity advocates in critical care? an exploratory study. Nurs Crit Care. 2018;23(2):82–7.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Kennedy DM. On what basis should the effectiveness of decision aids be judged? Health Expect. 2003;6:255–68.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Nelson WL, Han PK, Fagerlin A, Stefanek M, Ubel PA. Rethinking the objectives of decision aids: a call for conceptual clarity. Med Decis Mak. 2007;27(5):609–18.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and Neurocritical Care Society 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Neurocritical Care, Departments of Neurology, and NeurosurgeryUniversity of ChicagoChicagoUSA
  2. 2.The University of Chicago MedicineChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations