Disorders of Consciousness and Disability Law.


Journal

Mayo Clinic proceedings
ISSN: 1942-5546
Titre abrégé: Mayo Clin Proc
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0405543

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
08 2020
Historique:
received: 30 10 2019
revised: 21 01 2020
accepted: 11 02 2020
entrez: 6 8 2020
pubmed: 6 8 2020
medline: 6 11 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

In 2018, the American Academy of Neurology, the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine, and the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research published a systematic evidence-based review and an associated practice guideline for improved assessment, treatment, and rehabilitation of patients with disorders of consciousness. Patients with disorders of consciousness include individuals in the vegetative and minimally conscious states, as well as others with covert consciousness and cognitive motor dissociation. These landmark publications (concurrently published in Neurology and Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation) supplant the 1994 New England Journal of Medicine Multi-Society Task Force report on the vegetative state and the 2002 criteria establishing minimally conscious states. The guideline re-designates the permanent vegetative state as chronic. In our article, we consider the legal and ethical implications of the practice guideline for clinical practice and explain the vulnerability of these patients who suffer from high rates of misdiagnosis, inadequate medical surveillance, undertreatment of pain, inadequate rehabilitation, and segregation in chronic care. We argue that these deficiencies in medical care are inconsistent with our growing appreciation of the dynamic nature of these brain states and an emerging standard of care as articulated by the national guideline. These deficiencies also violate domestic and international disability law. To substantiate this latter claim, we apply disability law to this population, focusing on key Americans with Disabilities Act mandates, the relevance of the 1999 Supreme Court, Olmstead v. L.C., and the utility of Olmstead enforcement actions to integrate the care of these individuals into the medical mainstream.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32753147
pii: S0025-6196(20)30156-7
doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2020.02.008
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

1732-1739

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2020 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Joseph J Fins (JJ)

Division of Medical Ethics, Weill Medical College of Cornell University; The Consortium for the Advanced Study of Brain Injury, Weill Cornell Medical College and The Rockefeller University, New York NY; and Yale Law School, New Haven, CT. Electronic address: jjfins@med.cornell.edu.

Megan S Wright (MS)

Penn State Law, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.

Samuel R Bagenstos (SR)

University of Michigan School of Law, Ann Arbor, MI.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH