Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Traumatic Brain Injury: An Objective Model of Consent

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Neuroethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this paper was to explore the issue of consent when considering the use of a life saving but not necessarily restorative surgical intervention for severe traumatic brain injury. A previous study has investigated the issue amongst 500 healthcare workers by using a two-part structured interview to assess opinion regarding decompressive craniectomy for three patients with varying injury severity. A visual analogue scale was used to assess the strengths of their opinions both before and after being shown objective outcome data. Opinions were assessed in a number of scenarios, one of which was that the participants themselves were the injured party. The implication, which was clearly stated, was whether they would provide consent for the procedure to be performed. The study demonstrated that participants were relatively risk aversive in regards to survival with severe disability especially when the injury was severe and there was high probability of that outcome occurring. This finding was not however universal and a minority of participants would provide consent even when the possibility of survival with severe disability was very high. The obvious difficulty comes when considering consent in patients who are unable to express their wishes. In order to address this issue we propose a model of consent based on a balance of the various factors that seem to be of material relevance. These include the severity of the injury, the willingness or otherwise to accept survival with severe disability and the willingness to “risk” the possibility of an unacceptable outcome in order to achieve an acceptable outcome.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Druml, C. 2004. Informed consent of incapable (ICU) patients in Europe: existing laws and the EU Directive. Current Opinion in Critical Care 10: 570–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Beauchamp, T.L., and J.F. Childress. 2001. The meaning and justification of informed consent. In: Principles of biomedical ethics, 5th edn. New York: Oxford University Press; 77–98.

  3. Dunn, L.B., M.A. Nowrangi, B.W. Palmer, D.V. Jeste, and E.R. Saks. 2006. Assessing decisional capacity for clinical research or treatment: A review of instruments. The American Journal of Psychiatry 163: 1323–1334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Beauchamp, T.L., and J.F. Childress. 2001. The meaning and justification of informed consent. In: Principles of biomedical ethics, 5th edn. New York: Oxford University Press, 69–77

  5. Gillett, G.R., S. Honeybul, K.M. Ho, and C.R. Lind. 2010. Neurotrauma and the RUB: Where tragedy meets ethics and science. Journal of Medical Ethics 36: 727–730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Aarabi, B., D.C. Hesdorffer, E.S. Ahn, C. Aresco, T.M. Scalea, and H.M. Eisenberg. 2006. Outcome following decompressive craniectomy for malignant swelling due to severe head injury. Journal of Neurosurgery 104: 469–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Albanèse, J., M. Leone, J.R. Alliez, J.M. Kaya, F. Antonini, B. Alliez, and C. Martin. 2003. Decompressive craniectomy for severe traumatic brain injury: Evaluation of the effects at one year. Critical Care Medicine 31: 2535–2538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Guerra, W.K., M.R. Gaab, H. Dietz, J.U. Mueller, J. Piek, and M.J. Fritsch. 1999. Surgical decompression for traumatic brain swelling: Indications and results. Journal of Neurosurgery 90: 187–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Polin, R.S., M.E. Shaffrey, C.A. Bogaev, N. Tisdale, T. Germanson, B. Bocchicchio, and J.A. Jane. 1997. Decompressive bifrontal craniectomy in the treatment of severe refractory posttraumatic cerebral edema. Neurosurgery 41: 84–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Jennett, B., and M. Bond. 1975. Assessment of outcome after severe brain damage. Lancet 1: 480–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Honeybul, S., S. O'Hanlon, and K.M. Ho. 2011. Decompressive craniectomy for severe head injury: Does an outcome prediction model influence clinical decision-making? Journal of Neurotrauma 28: 13–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Honeybul, S., S. O'Hanlon, K.M. Ho, and G. Gillett. 2011. The influence of objective prognostic information on the likelihood of informed consent for decompressive craniectomy: A study of Australian anaesthetists. Anaesthesia and Intensive Care 39: 659–665.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Honeybul, S., S. O'Hanlon, and K.M. Ho. 2012. Access to reliable information about long-term prognosis influences clinical opinion on use of lifesaving intervention. PLoS One 7: e32375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Perel, P., M. Arango, T. Claydon, P. Edwards, E. Komolafe, S. Poccock, I. Roberts, H. Shakur, E. Steyerberg, and S. Yutthakasemsunt. 2008. Predicting outcome after brain injury: Practical prognostic models based on a large cohort of international patients. BMJ 23: 425–429.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Roberts, I., D. Yates, P. Sandercock, B. Farrell, J. Wassenberg, G. Lomas, R. Cottingham, P. Svodoba, N. Brayley, G. Mazairac, V. Laloe, A. Munoz-Sanchez, M. Arango, B. Hartzenberg, H. Khamis, S. Yutthakasemsunt, E. Komolafe, F. Olldashi, Y. Yadav, F. Murillo-Cabezas, H. Shakur, P. Edwards, and CRASH trial collaborators. 2004. Effect of intravenous corticosteroids on death within 14 days in 10008 adults with clinically significant head injury (MRC CRASH trial): Randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 364: 1321–1328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Honeybul, S., K.M. Ho, C.R.P. Lind, and G.R. Gillett. 2009. The retrospective application of a prediction model to patients who have had a decompressive craniectomy for trauma. Journal of Neurotrauma 26: 2179–2183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Honeybul, S., K.M. Ho, C.R.P. Lind, and G.R. Gillett. 2010. Observed versus predicted outcome for decompressive craniectomy: A population based study. Journal of Neurotrauma 27: 1225–1232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Campbell, A., Gillett, G., Jones G. 2005. Medical Ethics Oxford: University Press. 20–27.

  19. SUPPORT Principal investigators. 1995. A controlled trial to improve care of seriously ill hospitalized patients. The study to understand prognoses and preferences for outcomes and risks of treatment (SUPPORT). JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association 274: 1591–1598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Larach, D.R., D.B. Larach, and M.G. Larach. 2009. A life worth living: Seven years after Craniectomy. Neurocritical Care 11: 106–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Benejam, B., J. Sahuquillo, M.A. Poca, L. Frascheri, E. Solana, P. Delgado, and C. Junqué. 2009. Quality of life and neurobehavioral changes in survivors of malignant middle cerebral artery infarction. Journal of Neurology 256: 1126–1133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Gillett, G. 2011. Minimally conscious states, deep brain stimulation and what is worse than futility. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 8(2): 145–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Gillett, G., and S. Walker. 2012. The evolution of informed consent. Journal of Law and Medicine 19: 673–677.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurosurgery, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, Western Australia, Australia

    S. Honeybul

  2. Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Perth, Western Australia, Australia

    S. Honeybul

  3. Department of Intensive Care Medicine and School of Population Health, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia

    K. M. Ho

  4. Dunedin Hospital and Otago Bioethics Centre, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand

    G. R. Gillett

Authors
  1. S. Honeybul
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. K. M. Ho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. G. R. Gillett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Honeybul.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Honeybul, S., Ho, K.M. & Gillett, G.R. Traumatic Brain Injury: An Objective Model of Consent. Neuroethics 7, 11–18 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-012-9175-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-012-9175-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation