Compassionate Care for the Unconscious and Incapacitated

Equity in Clinical Care and Research Involving Persons with Disorders of Consciousness

People with disorders of consciousness (DoC) are characteristically unable to synchronously participate in decision-making about clinical care or research. The inability to self-advocate exacerbates preexisting socioeconomic and geographic disparities, which include the wide variability observed across individuals, hospitals, and countries in access to acute care, expertise, and sophisticated diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic interventions. Concerns about equity for people with DoC are particularly notable when they lack a surrogate decision-maker (legally referred to as "unrepresented" or "unbefriended"). Decisions about both short-term and long-term life-sustaining treatment typically rely on neuroprognostication and individual patient preferences that carry additional ethical considerations for people with DoC, as even individuals with well thought out advance directives cannot anticipate every possible situation to guide such decisions. Further challenges exist with the inclusion of people with DoC in research because consent must be completed (in most circumstances) through a surrogate, which excludes those who are unrepresented and may discourage investigators from exploring questions related to this population. In this article, the Curing Coma Campaign Ethics Working Group reviews equity considerations in clinical care and research involving persons with DoC in the following domains: (1) access to acute care and expertise, (2) access to diagnostics and therapeutics, (3) neuroprognostication, (4) medical decision-making for unrepresented people, (5) end-of-life decision-making, (6) access to postacute rehabilitative care, (7) access to research, (8) inclusion of unrepresented people in research, and (9) remuneration and reciprocity for research participation. The goal of this discussion is to advance equitable, harmonized, guideline-directed, and goal-concordant care for people with DoC of all backgrounds worldwide, prioritizing the ethical standards of respect for autonomy, beneficence, and justice. Although the focus of this evaluation is on people with DoC, much of the discussion can be extrapolated to other critically ill persons worldwide.

Limitation of life sustaining therapy in disorders of consciousness: ethics and practice

Clinical conversations surrounding the continuation or limitation of life-sustaining therapies (LLST) are both challenging and tragically necessary for patients with disorders of consciousness (DoC) following severe brain injury. Divergent cultural, philosophical and religious perspectives contribute to vast heterogeneity in clinical approaches to LLST-as reflected in regional differences and inter-clinician variability. Here we provide an ethical analysis of factors that inform LLST decisions among patients with DoC. We begin by introducing the clinical and ethical challenge and clarifying the distinction between withdrawing and withholding life-sustaining therapy. We then describe relevant factors that influence LLST decision-making including diagnostic and prognostic uncertainty, perception of pain, defining a 'good' outcome, and the role of clinicians. In concluding sections, we explore global variation in LLST practices as they pertain to patients with DoC and examine the impact of cultural and religious perspectives on approaches to LLST. Understanding and respecting the cultural and religious perspectives of patients and surrogates is essential to protecting patient autonomy and advancing goal-concordant care during critical moments of medical decision-making involving patients with DoC.

Disclosing Results of Tests for Covert Consciousness: A Framework for Ethical Translation

The advent of neurotechnologies including advanced functional magnetic resonance imaging and electroencephalography to detect states of awareness not detectable by traditional bedside neurobehavioral techniques (i.e., covert consciousness) promises to transform neuroscience research and clinical practice for patients with brain injury. As these interventions progress from research tools into actionable, guideline-endorsed clinical tests, ethical guidance for clinicians on how to responsibly communicate the sensitive results they yield is crucial yet remains underdeveloped. Drawing on insights from empirical and theoretical neuroethics research and our clinical experience with advanced neurotechnologies to detect consciousness in behaviorally unresponsive patients, we critically evaluate ethical promises and perils associated with disclosing the results of clinical covert consciousness assessments and describe a semistructured approach to responsible data sharing to mitigate potential risks.

Disorders of Consciousness Rehabilitation: Ethical Dimensions and Epistemic Dilemmas

Patients with disorders of consciousness who survive to discharge following severe acute brain injury may face profoundly complex medical, ethical, and psychosocial challenges during their courses of recovery and rehabilitation. Although issues encountered in caring for such patients during acute hospitalization have received substantial attention, ethical challenges that may arise in subacute and chronic phases have been underexplored. Shedding light on these issues, this article explores the landscape of normative issues in the course of treating and facilitating access to care for persons with disorders of consciousness during rehabilitation and examines potential implications for patients, clinicians, family members, and society.

Informed consent practices for acute stroke therapy: principles, challenges and emerging opportunities

IMPORTANCE

Informed consent (IC) plays a crucial yet underexplored role in acute stroke treatment, particularly in the context of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) and endovascular thrombectomy (EVT). This narrative review examines data on current IC practices in acute ischemic stroke management, specifically for patients treated with IVT or EVT, with the aim of identifying areas for improvement and strategies to enhance the IC process.

OBSERVATIONS

IC practices for IVT vary significantly among hospitals and physicians with the frequency of always requiring consent ranging from 21 to 37%. Factors influencing IC for IVT include patient decision-making capacity, standard of care, time sensitive nature of treatments, legal and moral obligations, risk of complications, physician age and speciality, treatment delays, and hospital size. Consent requirements tend to be stricter for patients presenting within the 3-4.5-h window. The content and style of information shared as part of the IC process revealed discrepancies in the disclosure of stroke diagnosis, IVT mechanism, benefits, and risks. Research on IC practices for EVT is scarce, highlighting a concerning gap in the available evidence base.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This review underscores the significant variability and knowledge gaps in IC for EVT and IVT. Challenges related to decision-making capacity assessment and the absence of standardised guidance substantially contributes to these gaps. Future initiatives should focus on simplifying information delivery to patients, developing formal tools for assessing capacity, standardising ethical frameworks to guide physicians when patients lack capacity and harmonizing IC standards across sites. The ultimate goal is to enhance IC practices and uphold patient autonomy, while ensuring timely treatment initiation.

Ethics Along the Continuum of Research Involving Persons with Disorders of Consciousness

Interest in disorders of consciousness (DoC) has grown substantially over the past decade and has illuminated the importance of improving understanding of DoC biology; care needs (use of monitoring, performance of interventions, and provision of emotional support); treatment options to promote recovery; and outcome prediction. Exploration of these topics requires awareness of numerous ethics considerations related to rights and resources. The Curing Coma Campaign Ethics Working Group used its expertise in neurocritical care, neuropalliative care, neuroethics, neuroscience, philosophy, and research to formulate an informal review of ethics considerations along the continuum of research involving persons with DoC related to the following: (1) study design; (2) comparison of risks versus benefits; (3) selection of inclusion and exclusion criteria; (4) screening, recruitment, and enrollment; (5) consent; (6) data protection; (7) disclosure of results to surrogates and/or legally authorized representatives; (8) translation of research into practice; (9) identification and management of conflicts of interest; (10) equity and resource availability; and (11) inclusion of minors with DoC in research. Awareness of these ethics considerations when planning and performing research involving persons with DoC will ensure that the participant rights are respected while maximizing the impact and meaningfulness of the research, interpretation of outcomes, and communication of results.

Ethical Considerations in Clinical Trials for Disorders of Consciousness

As the clinical trial landscape for patients with disorders of consciousness (DoC) expands, consideration of associated ethical challenges and opportunities is of ever-increasing importance. Responsible conduct of research in the vulnerable population of persons with DoC, including those with coma, vegetative state/unresponsive wakefulness syndrome (VS/UWS), minimally conscious state (MCS), covert cortical processing (CCP), and cognitive motor dissociation (CMD), demands proactive deliberation of unique ethical issues that may arise and the adoption of robust protections to safeguard patients, surrogates, and other key stakeholders. Here we identify and critically evaluate four central categories of ethical considerations in clinical trials involving participants with DoC: (1) autonomy, respect for persons and informed consent of individuals with liminal consciousness; (2) balancing unknown benefits and risks, especially considering the epistemological gap between behavior and consciousness that complicates ordinary ascription of subjective states; (3) disclosure to surrogates and clinical teams of investigational results pertaining to consciousness; and (4) justice considerations, including equitable access to clinical trial enrollment across communities and geographies. We outline guiding principles and research opportunities for clinicians, neuroethicists, and researchers engaged in DoC clinical trials to advance ethical study design and deployment in this complex yet crucial area of investigation.

The neuroethics of disorders of consciousness: a brief history of evolving ideas

Neuroethical questions raised by recent advances in the diagnosis and treatment of disorders of consciousness are rapidly expanding, increasingly relevant and yet underexplored. The aim of this thematic review is to provide a clinically applicable framework for understanding the current taxonomy of disorders of consciousness and to propose an approach to identifying and critically evaluating actionable neuroethical issues that are frequently encountered in research and clinical care for this vulnerable population. Increased awareness of these issues and clarity about opportunities for optimizing ethically responsible care in this domain are especially timely given recent surges in critically ill patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness associated with coronavirus disease 2019 around the world. We begin with an overview of the field of neuroethics: what it is, its history and evolution in the context of biomedical ethics at large. We then explore nomenclature used in disorders of consciousness, covering categories proposed by the American Academy of Neurology, the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living and Rehabilitation Research, including definitions of terms such as coma, the vegetative state, unresponsive wakefulness syndrome, minimally conscious state, covert consciousness and the confusional state. We discuss why these definitions matter, and why there has been such evolution in this nosology over the years, from Jennett and Plum in 1972 to the Multi-Society Task Force in 1994, the Aspen Working Group in 2002 and the 2018 American and 2020 European Disorders of Consciousness guidelines. We then move to a discussion of clinical aspects of disorders of consciousness, the natural history of recovery and ethical issues that arise within the context of caring for people with disorders of consciousness. We conclude with a discussion of key challenges associated with assessing residual consciousness in disorders of consciousness, potential solutions and future directions, including integration of crucial disability rights perspectives.

When Should Neuroendovascular Care for Patients With Acute Stroke Be Palliative?

Noncurative surgeries intended to relieve suffering during serious illness or near end of life have been analyzed across palliative settings. Yet sparse guidance is available to inform clinical management decisions about whether, when, and which interventions should be offered when ischemic stroke and other neurological complications occur in patients whose survival is extended by other novel disease-modifying interventions. This case commentary examines key ethical and clinical considerations in palliative neuroendovascular care of patients with acute stroke.

Goal-Concordant Care in the Era of Advanced Stroke Therapies

Stroke is a leading cause of disability and mortality worldwide. Recent advances in stroke care now enable patients with severe ischemic stroke owing to large vessel occlusion to safely undergo endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) up to 24 hours since their time of last known well, with the goal of improving functional outcomes by recanalization of the occluded vessel and reperfusion of downstream ischemic brain tissue. The objective of this analysis is to highlight clinical and ethical challenges related to ensuring goal-concordant care in this era of unprecedented advances in acute stroke care. Specifically, there is a salient challenge of whether advanced therapies such as EVT may be justifiably considered comfort focused, given their potential to preempt accumulated neurologic disability and suffering at the end of life. Through the lens of a patient case, we discuss key challenges, lessons learned, and suggestions for future care and research endeavors at the intersection of acute stroke care and palliative care principles. Although therapies such as thrombolysis and EVT may be considered aggressive prima facie, their potential to ameliorate additional disability and potential suffering at the end of life prompt close consideration of the proper role of these therapies on a case-by-case basis in the context of comfort-focused care. Modification to the workflow for EVT evaluations may facilitate goal-concordant care and timely resource allocation, especially for cases that involve hospital-to-hospital transfers for advanced stroke care.