This essay critiques the fiercely utilitarian allocation scheme of Cameron et al. Children have no hope of recovery if their lives are cut short based on administrative protocols that misrepresent the nature of their conditions. Unilateral futility judgements - especially those based on a false predicate - are discriminatory. When considering the best interests of children, we should see possibility in disability and not advance ill-informed utilitarianism.

Disorders of consciousness (DOC) continue to profoundly challenge both families and medical professionals. Once a brain-injured patient has been stabilized, questions turn to the prospect of recovery. However, what “recovery” means in the context of patients with prolonged DOC is not always clear. Failure to recognize potential differences of interpretation—and the assumptions about the relationship between health and well-being that underlie these differences—can inhibit communication between surrogate decisionmakers and a patient’s clinical team, and make it difficult to establish the goals of care. The authors examine the relationship between health and well-being as it pertains to patients with prolonged DOC. They argue that changes in awareness or other function should not be equated to changes in well-being, in the absence of a clear understanding of the constituents of well-being for that particular patient. The authors further maintain that a comprehensive conception of recovery for patients with prolonged DOC should incorporate aspects of both experienced well-being and evaluative well-being.

A growing number of studies show that a significant proportion of patients, who meet the clinical criteria for the diagnosis of the vegetative state (VS), demonstrate evidence of covert awareness through successful performance of neuroimaging tasks. Despite these important advances, the day-to-day life experiences of any such patient remain unknown. This presents a major challenge for optimizing the patient’s standard of care and quality of life (QoL). We describe a patient who, following emergence from a state of complete behavioral unresponsiveness and a clinical diagnosis of VS, reported rich memories of his experience during this time. This case demonstrates the potential for a sophisticated mental life enabled by preserved memory in a proportion of patients who, similarly, are thought to be unconscious. Therefore, it presents an important opportunity to examine the implications for patient QoL and standard of care, both during the period of presumed unconsciousness and after recovery.

Patients with disorders of consciousness after severe brain injury need surrogate decision makers to guide treatment decisions on their behalf. Formal guidelines for surrogate decisionmaking generally instruct decision makers to first appeal to a patient’s written advance directive, followed by making a substituted judgment of what the patient would have chosen, and lastly, to make decisions according to what seems to be in the patient’s best medical interests. Substituted judgment is preferable because it is taken to preserve patient autonomy, by using a patient’s past wishes and values to reconstruct what they would have chosen for themselves. In this paper, the author argues that for a certain population of patients, the standard interpretation of substituted judgment cannot ensure the preservation of patient autonomy. Patients with “covert awareness” may continue to have values and an authentic sense of self, which may differ from their past values and wishes. Accordingly, surrogate decision makers should make decisions based on how the patient is likely to experience their condition in the present, rather than their past wishes and values.

Long-term patient outcomes after severe brain injury are highly variable, and reliable prognostic indicators are urgently needed to guide treatment decisions. Functional neuroimaging is a highly sensitive method of uncovering covert cognition and awareness in patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness, and there has been increased interest in using it as a research tool in acutely brain injured patients. When covert awareness is detected in a research context, this may impact surrogate decisionmaking—including decisions about life-sustaining treatment—even though the prognostic value of covert consciousness is currently unknown. This paper provides guidance to clinicians and families in incorporating individual research results of unknown prognostic value into surrogate decisionmaking, focusing on three potential issues: (1) Surrogate decisionmakers may misinterpret results; (2) Results may create false hope about the prospects of recovery; (3) There may be disagreement about the meaningfulness or relevance of results, and appropriateness of continued care.

This paper, presented as the 2019 Cambridge Quarterly Neuroethics Network Charcot Lecture, traces the nosology of disorders of consciousness in light of 2018 practice guidelines promulgated by the American Academy of Neurology, the American College of Rehabilitation Medicine and the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living and Rehabilitation Research. By exploring the ancient origins of Jennett and Plum’s persistent vegetative state and subsequent refinements in the classification of disorders of consciousness—epitomized by the minimally conscious state, cognitive motor dissociation, and the recently described chronic vegetative state—the author argues that there is a counter-narrative to the one linking these conditions to the right to die. Instead, there is a more nuanced schema distinguishing futility from utility, informed by technical advances now able to identify covert consciousness contemplated by Jennett and Plum. Their prescience foreshadows recent developments in the disorders of consciousness literature yielding a layered legacy with implications for society’s normative and legal obligations to these patients.

The Coma Recovery Scale-Revised (CRS-R) is the gold standard of responsiveness assessment in patients with disorder of consciousness. The purpose of this study is to search for the efficacy of the caregivers’ involvement in the evaluation of responsiveness in these patients. Responsiveness assessment was performed in 15 patients with CRS-R. The CRS-R was administered with and without the emotional stimulation of the primary caregiver at different times. Our preliminary findings seem to suggest that, including also the caregivers during CRS-R assessment, may obtain better responsiveness scoring than that obtained by professionals and might reduce the misdiagnosis rate.

Some authors have questioned the moral authority of advance directives (ADs) in cases in which it is not clear if the author of the AD is identical to the person to whom it later applies. This article focuses on the question of whether the latest results of neuroimaging studies have moral significance with regard to the moral authority of ADs in patients with disorders of consciousness (DOCs). Some neuroimaging findings could provide novel insights into the question of whether patients with DOCs exhibit sufficient psychological continuity to be ascribed diachronic personal identity. If those studies were to indicate that psychological continuity is present, they could justify the moral authority of ADs in patients with DOCs. This holds at least if respect for self-determination is considered as the foundation for the moral authority of ADs. The non-identity thesis in DOCs could no longer be applied, in line with clinical and social practice.

The literature about the care givers of patients with Disorders of Consciousness (DOCs) has highlighted the impact on both mental and physical dimensions of quality of life. This study aimed to: (1) describe emotional burden, quality of life, and coping styles in care givers of hospitalized patients with DOCs, compared to Italian normative data; (2) explore the relationships between these variables and their associations with socio-demographic features; and (3) describe their changes over time.

Fifteen care givers of patients with DOCs, mostly middle-aged women, were assessed using the Family Strain Questionnaire, the SF-36 Health Survey, and the Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced – Nuova Versione Italiana. Eleven subjects were also assessed after 6 and 12 months. Data were analysed through descriptive statistics, correlations, and nonparametric tests of group differences.

Compared to the Italian normative data, our sample showed a worse outcome in mental health, social functioning, global mental component, and emotional role functioning. Furthermore, subjects with high emotional burden had more thoughts of death compared to subjects with low emotional burden. Follow-up analyses revealed no variables changed over time.

These results highlight the need for psychological interventions and support, since care givers represent an important part of an all-embracing support and care network for patients with DOCs.

In the 2015 David Kopf Lecture on Neuroethics of the Society for Neuroscience, Dr. Joseph Fins presents his work on neuroethics and disorders of consciousness through the experience of Maggie and Nancy Worthen, a young woman who sustained a severe brain injury and her mother who cared for her. The central protagonists in his book, Rights Come to Mind: Brain Injury, Ethics and the Struggle for Consciousness (Cambridge University Press, 2015), their experience is emblematic of the challenges faced by families touched by severe brain injury and the possibility for improved diagnosis and treatment offered by progress in neuroscience. By telling their story, and those of other families interviewed as part of the research for Rights Come to Mind, Fins calls for improved care for this population arguing that this is both an access to care issue and a civil and disability rights issue worthy of greater societal attention.

Objectives: Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) may be adopted as a complementary tool for bedside observation in the disorders of consciousness (DOC). However, the diagnostic value of this technique is still debated because of the lack of accuracy in determining levels of consciousness within a single patient. Recently, Giacino and colleagues (2014) hypothesized that a longitudinal fMRI evaluation may provide a more informative assessment in the detection of residual awareness. The aim of this study was to measure the correspondence between clinically defined level of awareness and neural responses within a single DOC patient. Methods: We used a follow-up fMRI design in combination with a passive speech-processing task. Patient’s consciousness was measured through time by using the Coma Recovery Scale. Results: The patient progressed from a vegetative state (VS) to a minimally conscious state (MCS). Patient’s task-related neural responses mirrored the clinical change from a VS to an MCS. Specifically, while in an MCS, but not a VS, the patient showed a selective recruitment of the left angular gyrus when he listened to a native speech narrative, as compared to the reverse presentation of the same stimulus. Furthermore, the patient showed an increased response in the language-related brain network and a greater deactivation in the default mode network following his progression to an MCS. Conclusions: Our findings indicate that longitudinal assessment of brain responses to passive stimuli can contribute to the definition of the clinical status in individual patients with DOC and represents an adequate counterpart of the bedside assessment during the diagnostic decision-making process. (JINS, 2016, 22, 620–630)

In this article, I attempt to untangle some of the cultural, philosophical, and ethical currents that informed the Schiavo case. My objective is to better apprehend what the Schiavo case means for end-of-life care in general and to assert that our discourse about the ethical issues attendant to brain injury will be impoverished if we limit our discussions about disorders of consciousness solely to the vegetative state. If we ignore emerging developments in neuroscience that are helping to elucidate the nature of these disorders and fail to broaden the conversation about brain injury, beyond the unmitigated futility of the permanent vegetative state, we will imperil others who might improve and be helped. Through such efforts we can help mitigate the tragedy of the Schiavo case and overcome the rhetoric that marked the national discourse in March 2005. Once the complexity of disorders of consciousness is appreciated, rhetorical statements about a right to die or a right to life are exposed as being incompatible with the challenge of providing care to such patients. This is especially true as neuroscience brings greater diagnostic refinement to their assessment and management, a topic addressed in this article, which specifically focuses on the clinical and ethical implications of the recently described minimally conscious state. Instead of staking out ideological positions that do not meet the needs of patients or families, we should strive to both preserve the right to die for those who are beyond hope while affirming the right to care to those who might benefit from coming advances in neuroscience. If we can achieve that delicate balance, we will be able to transcend the partisan debate that shrouded the life and death of Theresa Marie Schiavo and begin to articulate a palliative neuroethics of care for those touched by severe brain injury and disorders of consciousness.