Advertisement

Neuroethics

pp 1–20 | Cite as

How Does Functional Neurodiagnostics Inform Surrogate Decision-Making for Patients with Disorders of Consciousness? A Qualitative Interview Study with Patients’ Next of Kin

  • Leah Schembs
  • Maria Ruhfass
  • Eric Racine
  • Ralf J. Jox
  • Andreas Bender
  • Martin Rosenfelder
  • Katja KuehlmeyerEmail author
Original Paper
  • 14 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Functional neurodiagnostics could allow researchers and clinicians to distinguish more accurately between the unresponsive wakefulness syndrome (UWS) and the minimally conscious state (MCS). It remains unclear how it informs surrogate decision-making.

Objective

To explore how the next of kin of patients with disorders of consciousness (DOC) interpret the results of a functional neurodiagnostics measure and how/why their interpretations influence their attitudes towards medical decisions.

Methods and Sample

We conducted problem-centered interviews with seven next of kin of patients with DOC who had undergone a functional HD-EEG examination at a neurological rehabilitation center in Germany. The examination included an auditory oddball paradigm and a motor imagery task to detect hidden awareness. We analyzed the interview transcripts using structuring qualitative content analysis.

Results

Regardless of the diagnostic results, all participants were optimistic of the patients’ meaningful recovery. We hypothesize, that participants deal with the results of examinations according to their belief system. Thus, an unfavorable evaluation of the patient’s state (e.g., a “negative” HD-EEG-result) had the potential to destabilize the participant’s belief system. To re-stabilize or to prevent the destabilization of their belief system, participants used different strategies. Participants accepted a “positive” HD-EEG result since it stabilized their belief system.

Conclusion

We hypothesize, that a group of next of kin of patients with DOC deals with functional neurodiagnostics results on the basis of the result’s value and their high hope that the patient will recover meaningfully. A psychological mechanism seems to moderate the impact of functional neurodiagnostics on surrogate treatment decisions.

Keywords

Unresponsive wakefulness syndrome (UWS) Persistent vegetative state (PVS) Minimally conscious state (MCS) Functional neuroimaging Electroencephalography (EEG) Family care givers 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This article is part of LS’s cumulative dissertation (Dr. med.) at the Medical Faculty of LMU Munich. The assistance provided by Marion Arndt in approaching the participants and ensuring their informed consent, by Silke Ohlmeier for transcribing interviews and sharing her insights during early stages of the analysis with us, by Lukas Martinez who translated some of the interview quotes from German into English and by Lars Schrodberger who finalized the layout of the figure is very much appreciated. We are grateful to participants of different research meetings where we were able to discuss our study, foremost in Germany at the rehabilitation center where the examinations of the patients were conducted, the Qualitative Workshop [Qualitative Werkstatt] at LMU Munich, the Institute for Ethics, History and Theory of Medicine at LMU Munich, the Palliative Medicine Research Network under the lead of Prof. Dr. Gian Domenico Borasio in Munich and in Canada a meeting with the Montréal Neuroethics Network and a Journal Club at the Neuroethics Research Unit at the IRCM and a poster presentation at the 21st International Congress on Palliative Care. Last but not least, we would like to express our great appreciation to the participants of this study who shared their personal experiences with us. We also express our gratitude to the Friedrich-Baur-Stiftung who funded our study (Grant Number: 12/14, funding period 8/2014 to 07/2016) and the Max Weber Program who funded LS’s research stay at the IRCM, Montréal, Canada and her visit to the 21st International Congress on Palliative Care. Furthermore, ER receives a career award from the Fonds de recherche du Québec – Santé (FRQ-S).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Research involving Human Participants: All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest

All authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Giacino, J.T., S. Ashwal, N. Childs, R. Cranford, B. Jennett, D.I. Katz, J.P. Kelly, J.H. Rosenberg, J. Whyte, R.D. Zafonte, and N.D. Zasler. 2002. The minimally conscious state: Definition and diagnostic criteria. Neurology 58 (3): 349–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jennett, B., and F. Plum. 1972. Persistent vegetative state after brain damage. RN 35 (10): ICU1–ICU4.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Laureys, S., et al. 2010. Unresponsive wakefulness syndrome: A new name for the vegetative state or apallic syndrome. BMC Medicine 8: 68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Multi-Society Task Force on PVS. 1994. Medical aspects of the persistent vegetative state (1). The New England Journal of Medicine 330 (21): 1499–1508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bernat, J.L. 2010. Current controversies in states of chronic unconsciousness. Neurology 75 (18 Suppl 1): S33–S38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Luaute, J., et al. 2010. Long-term outcomes of chronic minimally conscious and vegetative states. Neurology 75 (3): 246–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bernat, J.L., and D.A. Rottenberg. 2007. Conscious awareness in PVS and MCS: The borderlands of neurology. Neurology 68 (12): 885–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bender, A., et al. S1-Leitlinie Hypoxisch-ischämische Enzephalopathie im Erwachsenenalter. Leitlinien für Diagnostik und Therapie in der Neurologie 2018 [cited 2019 30 March]; Available from: www.dgn.org/leitlinien.
  9. 9.
    Giacino, J.T., C. Schnakers, D. Rodriguez-Moreno, K. Kalmar, N. Schiff, and J. Hirsch. 2009. Behavioral assessment in patients with disorders of consciousness: Gold standard or fool’s gold? Progress in Brain Research 177: 33–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Owen, A.M., N.D. Schiff, and S. Laureys. 2009. The assessement of conscious awareness in the vegetative state. In The neurology of consciousness: Cognitive neuroscience and neurpathology. London/Burlington/San Diego: Academic (Elsevier).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schnakers, C., et al. 2009. Diagnostic accuracy of the vegetative and minimally conscious state: Clinical consensus versus standardized neurobehavioral assessment. BMC Neurology 9: 35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jox, R.J., J.L. Bernat, S. Laureys, and E. Racine. 2012. Disorders of consciousness: Responding to requests for novel diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. Lancet Neurology 11 (8): 732–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Aguirre, G.K. 2014. Functional neuroimaging: Technical, logical, and social perspectives. The Hastings Center Report Spec No: p. S8–18.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fernandez-Espejo, D., and A.M. Owen. 2013. Detecting awareness after severe brain injury. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 14 (11): 801–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Laureys, S., and N.D. Schiff. 2012. Coma and consciousness: Paradigms (re)framed by neuroimaging. Neuroimage 61 (2): 478–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Owen, A.M., M.R. Coleman, M. Boly, M.H. Davis, S. Laureys, and J.D. Pickard. 2006. Detecting awareness in the vegetative state. Science 313 (5792): 1402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Boly, M., M.R. Coleman, M.H. Davis, A. Hampshire, D. Bor, G. Moonen, P.A. Maquet, J.D. Pickard, S. Laureys, and A.M. Owen. 2007. When thoughts become action: An fMRI paradigm to study volitional brain activity in non-communicative brain injured patients. Neuroimage 36 (3): 979–992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Monti, M.M., et al. 2010. Willful modulation of brain activity in disorders of consciousness. The New England Journal of Medicine 362 (7): 579–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Peterson, A., et al. 2015. Risk, diagnostic error, and the clinical science of consciousness. NeuroImage Clinical 7: 588–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Horki, P., et al. 2014. Detection of mental imagery and attempted movements in patients with disorders of consciousness using EEG. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 8: 1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cruse, D., S. Chennu, C. Chatelle, T.A. Bekinschtein, D. Fernández-Espejo, J.D. Pickard, S. Laureys, and A.M. Owen. 2011. Bedside detection of awareness in the vegetative state: A cohort study. Lancet 378 (9809): 2088–2094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cruse, D., S. Chennu, D. Fernández-Espejo, W.L. Payne, G.B. Young, and A.M. Owen. 2012. Detecting awareness in the vegetative state: Electroencephalographic evidence for attempted movements to command. PLoS One 7 (11): e49933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gibson, R.M., et al. 2014. Multiple tasks and neuroimaging modalities increase the likelihood of detecting covert awareness in patients with disorders of consciousness. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 8: 950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Goldfine, A.M., J.D. Victor, M.M. Conte, J.C. Bardin, and N.D. Schiff. 2011. Determination of awareness in patients with severe brain injury using EEG power spectral analysis. Clinical Neurophysiology 122 (11): 2157–2168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sergent, C., F. Faugeras, B. Rohaut, F. Perrin, M. Valente, C. Tallon-Baudry, L. Cohen, and L. Naccache. 2017. Multidimensional cognitive evaluation of patients with disorders of consciousness using EEG: A proof of concept study. NeuroImage Clinical 13: 455–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Laureys, S., F. Pellas, P. van Eeckhout, S. Ghorbel, C. Schnakers, F. Perrin, J. Berré, M.E. Faymonville, K.H. Pantke, F. Damas, M. Lamy, G. Moonen, and S. Goldman. 2005. The locked-in syndrome: What is it like to be conscious but paralyzed and voiceless? Progress in Brain Research 150: 495–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bruno, M.A., A. Vanhaudenhuyse, A. Thibaut, G. Moonen, and S. Laureys. 2011. From unresponsive wakefulness to minimally conscious PLUS and functional locked-in syndromes: Recent advances in our understanding of disorders of consciousness. Journal of Neurology 258 (7): 1373–1384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schiff, N.D. 2015. Cognitive motor dissociation following severe brain injuries. JAMA Neurology 72 (12): 1413–1415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bernat, J.L. 2004. Ethical aspects of determining and communicating prognosis in critical care. Neurocritical Care 1 (1): 107–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Estraneo, A., P. Moretta, V. Loreto, B. Lanzillo, L. Santoro, and L. Trojano. 2010. Late recovery after traumatic, anoxic, or hemorrhagic long-lasting vegetative state. Neurology 75 (3): 239–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kuehlmeyer, K., et al. 2013. Single case reports on late recovery from chronic disorders of consciousness: A systematic review and ethical appraisal. Bioethica Forum 6 (4).Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Johnson, L.S.M., and C. Lazaridis. 2018. The sources of uncertainty in disorders of consciousness. AJOB Neuroscience 9 (2): 76–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Smart, C.M., and J.T. Giacino. 2015. Exploring caregivers' knowledge of and receptivity toward novel diagnostic tests and treatments for persons with post-traumatic disorders of consciousness. NeuroRehabilitation 37 (1): 117–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kitzinger, J. 2013. Reporting consciousness in coma: Media framing of neuro-scientific research, hope, and the response of families with relatives in vegetative and minimally conscious states. JOMEC Journal 3: 1–15.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Weijer, C., et al. 2014. Ethics of neuroimaging after serious brain injury. BMC Medical Ethics 15: 41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Besancon. Families expectations and hope raised by an evaluation of consciousness in patients in a vegetative state (REVE). 2016 [cited 2019 30 March]; Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT02879565.
  37. 37.
    Tong, A., P. Sainsbury, and J. Craig. 2007. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care 19 (6): 349–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Schreier, M. 2012. Qualitative content analysis in practice. Sage Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Stamann, C., M. Janssen, and M. Schreier. 2016. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse – Versuch einer Begriffsbestimmung und Systematisierung. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research 17 (3): 16.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mayring, P. 2000. Qualitative content analysis. Forum Qualitative Social Research 1 (2).Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Mayring, P. 2014. Qualitative content analysis: Theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solution. Klagenfurt.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Helfferich, C. 2010. Die Qualität qualitativer Daten: Manual für die Durchführung qualitativer Interviews. Vol. 4. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Jox, R.J., K. Kuehlmeyer, A.M. Klein, J. Herzog, M. Schaupp, D.A. Nowak, E. Koenig, F. Müller, and A. Bender. 2015. Diagnosis and decision making for patients with disorders of consciousness: A survey among family members. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 96 (2): 323–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kuehlmeyer, K., G.D. Borasio, and R.J. Jox. 2012. How family caregivers' medical and moral assumptions influence decision making for patients in the vegetative state: A qualitative interview study. Journal of Medical Ethics 38 (6): 332–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Dresing, T., T. Pehl, and C. Schmieder, Manual (on) transcription. Transcription conventions, software guides and practical hints for qualitative researchers. 2015, Marburg.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    VERBI Software. Consult. Sozialforschung GmbH, B., Deutschland, MAXQDA, Software für qualitative Datenanalyse. 1989–2018.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Saldana, J. 2013. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Vol. 2. Sage.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Flick, U., E. von Kardorff, and I. Steinke. 2008. Was ist qualitative Forschung? Einleitung und Überblick. In Qualitative Forschung: Ein Handbuch, ed. E. von Kardorff, U. Flick, and I. Steinke, 13–29. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Hopf, C. and C. Schmidt, Zum Verhältnis von innerfamilialen sozialen Erfahrungen, Persönlichkeitsentwicklung und politischen Orientierungen: Dokumentation und Erörterung des methodischen Vorgehens in einer Studie zu diesem Thema. 1993, Hildesheim.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Synder, C.R. 2000. Handbook of hope: Theory, measures, and applications. San Diego: Academic.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Phipps, E.J., et al. 1997. Interpreting responsiveness in persons with severe traumatic brain injury: Beliefs in families and quantitative evaluations. The Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation 12 (4): 52–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Crawford, S., and J.G. Beaumont. 2005. Psychological needs of patients in low awareness states, their families, and health professionals. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation 15 (3–4): 548–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Løvstad, M., K.N. Solbrække, M. Kirkevold, A. Geard, S.L. Hauger, and A.K. Schanke. 2018. “It gets better. It can’t be worse than what we have been through.” Family accounts of the minimally conscious state. Brain Injury 32 (13–14): 1659–1669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Edgar, A., C. Kitzinger, and J. Kitzinger. 2015. Interpreting chronic disorders of consciousness: Medical science and family experience. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 21: 374–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Verhaeghe, S.T., F. van Zuuren, T. Defloor, M.S. Duijnstee, and M.H. Grypdonck. 2007. The process and the meaning of hope for family members of traumatic coma patients in intensive care. Qualitative Health Research 17 (6): 730–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Crispi, F., and C. Crisci. 2000. Patients in persistent vegetative state and what of their relatives? Nursing Ethics 7 (6): 533–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Boyd, E.A., B. Lo, L.R. Evans, G. Malvar, L. Apatira, J.M. Luce, and D.B. White. 2010. "It's not just what the doctor tells me:" Factors that influence surrogate decision-makers' perceptions of prognosis. Critical Care Medicine 38 (5): 1270–1275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Musschenga, B. 2019. Is there a problem with false Hope? The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine 44 (4): 423–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Tresch, D.D., F.H. Sims, Duthie EH Jr, and M.D. Goldstein. 1991. Patients in a persistent vegetative state attitudes and reactions of family members. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 39 (1): 17–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Mwaria, C.B. 1990. The concept of self in the context of crisis: A study of families of the severely brain-injured. Social Science & Medicine 30 (8): 889–893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Gray, K., T.A. Knickman, and D.M. Wegner. 2011. More dead than dead: Perceptions of persons in the persistent vegetative state. Cognition 121 (2): 275–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Ditto, P.H. 2006. What would Terri want? On the psychological challenges of surrogate decision making. Death Studies 30 (2): 135–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Racine, E., R. Amaram, M. Seidler, M. Karczewska, and J. Illes. 2008. Media coverage of the persistent vegetative state and end-of-life decision-making. Neurology 71 (13): 1027–1032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Festinger, L. 1957. A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Festinger, L., H. Riecken, and S. Schachter. 1956. When prophecy fails. Harper-Torchbooks.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Harmon-Jones, E., and C. Harmon-Jones. 2007. Cognitive dissonance theory after 50 years of development. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie 38 (1): 7–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Ong, A.S., L. Frewer, and M.Y. Chan. 2017. Cognitive dissonance in food and nutrition–a review. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 57 (11): 2330–2342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Steckelberg, A., J. Kasper, and I. Muhlhauser. 2005. Selective information seeking: Can consumers' avoidance of evidence-based information on colorectal cancer screening be explained by the theory of cognitive dissonance? German Medical Science 5.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Schembs, L., R.J. Jox, and K. Kuehlmeyer. 2018. Social uncertainty in disorders of consciousness: Shedding light on the various perspectives of family caregivers and surrogates. AJOB Neuroscience 9 (2): 85–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Macdonald, M.E., S. Liben, F.A. Carnevale, and S.R. Cohen. 2008. Signs of life and signs of death: Brain death and other mixed messages at the end of life. Journal of Child Health Care 12 (2): 92–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Racine, E., S. Sattler, and A. Escande. 2017. Free will and the brain disease model of addiction: The not so seductive allure of neuroscience and its modest impact on the attribution of free will to people with an addiction. Frontiers in Psychology 8: 1850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Kuehlmeyer, K., et al. 2014. Physicians' attitudes toward medical and ethical challenges for patients in the vegetative state: Comparing Canadian and German perspectives in a vignette survey. BMC Neurology 14: 119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Racine, E. 2010. Pragmatic neuroethics: Improving treatment and understanding of the mind-brain, 174–176. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Kuehlmeyer, K., E. Racine, N. Palmour, E. Hoster, G.D. Borasio, and R.J. Jox. 2012. Diagnostic and ethical challenges in disorders of consciousness and locked-in syndrome: A survey of German neurologists. Journal of Neurology 259 (10): 2076–2089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    McCabe, D.P., and A.D. Castel. 2008. Seeing is believing: The effect of brain images on judgments of scientific reasoning. Cognition 107 (1): 343–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Michael, R.B., E.J. Newman, M. Vuorre, G. Cumming, and M. Garry. 2013. On the (non)persuasive power of a brain image. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 20 (4): 720–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Feigenson, N. 2006. Brain imaging and courtroom evidence: On the admissibility and persuasiveness of fMRI. International Journal of Law in Context 2 (3): 233–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Jox, R.J., E. Denke, J. Hamann, R. Mendel, H. Förstl, and G.D. Borasio. 2012. Surrogate decision making for patients with end-stage dementia. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 27 (10): 1045–1052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Suppes, A., and J.J. Fins. 2013. Surrogate expectations in severe brain injury. Brain Injury 27 (10): 1141–1147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    French, K.B. 2017. Care of extremely small premature infants in the neonatal intensive care unit: A parent's perspective. Clinics in Perinatology 44 (2): 275–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Lariviere-Bastien, D., et al. 2011. Perspectives of adolescents and young adults with cerebral palsy on the ethical and social challenges encountered in healthcare services. Narrative Inquiry in Bioethics 1 (1): 43–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Mruck, K., and F. Breuer. 2003. Subjectivity and reflexivity in qualitative research – The FQS issues. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research 2 (4).Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Schorr, B., W. Schlee, M. Arndt, D. Lulé, I.T. Kolassa, A. Lopez-Rolon, and A. Bender. 2015. Stability of auditory event-related potentials in coma research. Journal of Neurology 262 (2): 307–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Kalmar, K., and J.T. Giacino. 2005. The JFK coma recovery scale—Revised. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation 15 (3–4): 454–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Ethics, History and Theory of MedicineLMU MunichMunichGermany
  2. 2.Pragmatic Health Ethics Research Unit, Institut de recherches cliniques de Montréal (IRCM)MontrealCanada
  3. 3.Department of NeurologyUniversity Hospital, LMU MunichMunichGermany
  4. 4.Therapiezentrum BurgauBurgauGermany
  5. 5.Clinical Ethics Unit and Institute of Humanities in MedicineLausanne University Hospital and University of LausanneLausanneSwitzerland
  6. 6.Service of Palliative and Supportive Care, Department of MedicineLausanne University HospitalLausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations