Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T21:41:32.923Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Commentary: Further Considerations in Using Functional Neuroimaging in Patients with Disorders of Consciousness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 September 2019

JAMES L. BERNAT
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Commentary
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 28 , Special Issue 4: Clinical Neuroethics , October 2019 , pp. 632 - 634
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Graham, M, Wallace, E, Doherty, C, McCann, A, Naci, L. From awareness to prognosis: Ethical implications of uncovering hidden awareness in behaviorally non-responsive patients. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2019;28(4):616–31.Google Scholar

2. For further discussion and references on these issues, see Bernat, JL. The medical practice impact of functional neuroimaging studies in patients with disorders of consciousness. In: Monti, MM, Sannita, WG, eds. Brain Function and Responsiveness in Disorders of Consciousness. Heidelberg: Springer; 2016, at 157–69.Google Scholar

3. Bernat, JL. Nosologic considerations in disorders of consciousness. Annals of Neurology 2017;82:863–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

4. Bernat, JL. Prognostic limitations of syndromic diagnosis in disorders of consciousness. American Journal of Bioethics: Neuroscience 2016;7(1):46–8.Google Scholar

5. Bernat, JL. Ethical aspects of determining and communicating prognosis in critical care. Neurocritical Care 2004;1:107–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

6. Bardin, JC, Fins, JJ, Katz, DI, Hersh, J, Heier, LA, Tabelow, K, et al. Dissociations between behavioural and functional magnetic resonance imaging-based evaluations of cognitive function after brain injury. Brain 2011;134:769–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

7. Rohaut, B, Eliseyev, A, Claassen, J. Uncovering consciousness in unresponsive ICU patients: Technical, medical and ethical considerations. Critical Care 2019;23:78. https:/doi.org/10.1186/s13054-019-2370-4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

8. Shalowitz, DI, Garrett-Mayer, E, Wendler, D. The accuracy of surrogate decision makers: A systematic review. Archives of Internal Medicine 2006;166:493–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

9. See note 5, Bernat 2016.

10. Fins, JJ, Bernat, JL. Ethical, palliative, and policy considerations in disorders of consciousness. Neurology 2018;91:471–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

11. Bernat, JL. Medical decision-making by patients in the locked-in syndrome. Neuroethics 2018. epub, published online. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-018-9358-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12. See note 10, Fins, Bernat 2018.