Analyzing the paradigmatic cases of two persons with a disorder of consciousness: reflections on the legal and ethical perspectives.

Disorders of consciousness Eluana Englaro Reconstruction of self-expression Relationship between law and ethics Theresa Marie Schiavo Time of care Vegetative state

Journal

BMC medical ethics
ISSN: 1472-6939
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Ethics
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088680

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
08 07 2021
Historique:
received: 19 03 2020
accepted: 30 06 2021
entrez: 9 7 2021
pubmed: 10 7 2021
medline: 7 8 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Media have increasingly reported on the difficulties associated with end-of-life decision-making in patients with Disorders of Consciousness (DOC), contextualizing such dilemma in detailed accounts of the patient's life. Two of the first stories debated in the scientific community were those related to the cases of two women, one American, the other Italian, who captured attention of millions of people in the first years of this third millennium. Much has been written about the challenges of surrogate decision-making for patients in DOC, but less has been written comparing these challenges across legal systems and cultures. In our paper, we propose a systematic analysis of the final legal documents written by the American and Italian Courts in relation to the two cases, developing our discussion around three areas: the level of certainty/reliability of diagnosis and prognosis, the reconstruction of self-expression, time of illness and time of care. They are examples of the typical issues discussed by legal authors and allow us to understand the link and the difference between the legal and ethical perspectives. The legal approach to the two cases has some common elements: the need to be certain about the diagnosis and prognosis and the fact that the clinical criteria are necessary in determining the most appropriate treatments, although these criteria are not sufficient unless they are supplemented by the patient's will. The issue of relations takes on importance both from a legal and an ethical point of view, but from two different perspectives. While ethics safeguards relationships by guaranteeing their differences and makes them reconcilable, law safeguards relationships by guaranteeing the cold forms of respect, equality, impartiality, symmetry, reciprocity, and irreversibility. In this perspective, the link between the time of care and the decision of the family members assumes importance. The most interesting point that emerges from our analysis is the issue of relationships and how they affect decisions, both from a legal and ethical point of view. For this reason, during the patients' hospitalization, it is necessary to identify ways in which they might give their opinion about the moral issues underlying their choices.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Media have increasingly reported on the difficulties associated with end-of-life decision-making in patients with Disorders of Consciousness (DOC), contextualizing such dilemma in detailed accounts of the patient's life. Two of the first stories debated in the scientific community were those related to the cases of two women, one American, the other Italian, who captured attention of millions of people in the first years of this third millennium.
METHODS
Much has been written about the challenges of surrogate decision-making for patients in DOC, but less has been written comparing these challenges across legal systems and cultures. In our paper, we propose a systematic analysis of the final legal documents written by the American and Italian Courts in relation to the two cases, developing our discussion around three areas: the level of certainty/reliability of diagnosis and prognosis, the reconstruction of self-expression, time of illness and time of care. They are examples of the typical issues discussed by legal authors and allow us to understand the link and the difference between the legal and ethical perspectives.
RESULTS
The legal approach to the two cases has some common elements: the need to be certain about the diagnosis and prognosis and the fact that the clinical criteria are necessary in determining the most appropriate treatments, although these criteria are not sufficient unless they are supplemented by the patient's will. The issue of relations takes on importance both from a legal and an ethical point of view, but from two different perspectives. While ethics safeguards relationships by guaranteeing their differences and makes them reconcilable, law safeguards relationships by guaranteeing the cold forms of respect, equality, impartiality, symmetry, reciprocity, and irreversibility. In this perspective, the link between the time of care and the decision of the family members assumes importance.
CONCLUSIONS
The most interesting point that emerges from our analysis is the issue of relationships and how they affect decisions, both from a legal and ethical point of view. For this reason, during the patients' hospitalization, it is necessary to identify ways in which they might give their opinion about the moral issues underlying their choices.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34238274
doi: 10.1186/s12910-021-00656-w
pii: 10.1186/s12910-021-00656-w
pmc: PMC8268180
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

88

Références

Disabil Rehabil. 2009;31 Suppl 1:S134-43
pubmed: 19968526
Brain Inj. 2006 Dec;20(13-14):1321-8
pubmed: 17378223
J Neurol. 2011 Jun;258(6):1058-65
pubmed: 21221625
Prog Brain Res. 2009;177:371-82
pubmed: 19818915
BMC Med Ethics. 2020 Jun 30;21(1):50
pubmed: 32605569
J Med Ethics. 2021 Feb;47(2):119-120
pubmed: 32409624
Hastings Cent Rep. 2005 Nov-Dec;Spec No:S26-30
pubmed: 16468252
BMC Med Ethics. 2019 Oct 26;20(1):76
pubmed: 31655573
Handb Clin Neurol. 2015;127:277-93
pubmed: 25702223
Hastings Cent Rep. 2004 Jul-Aug;34(4):10-1
pubmed: 15379093
Ann Ist Super Sanita. 2014;50(3):221-8
pubmed: 25292269
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004 Dec;85(12):2020-9
pubmed: 15605342
PLoS One. 2011 Apr 12;6(4):e18706
pubmed: 21533275
Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2005 Jul-Sep;15(3-4):454-60
pubmed: 16350986
Lancet. 2006 Apr 8;367(9517):1181-92
pubmed: 16616561
Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2010 Jul;19(3):372-80
pubmed: 20507685
Lancet. 1972 Apr 1;1(7753):734-7
pubmed: 4111204
Sci Eng Ethics. 2016 Aug;22(4):1251-1253
pubmed: 26276161
London J Prim Care (Abingdon). 2009;2(2):125-9
pubmed: 25949590
Prog Brain Res. 2009;177:249-60
pubmed: 19818906
Neurology. 2006 Jun 13;66(11):1624-8
pubmed: 16571840
J Med Ethics. 2020 Aug;46(8):561-562
pubmed: 32054775
Mayo Clin Proc. 2006 Sep;81(9):1155-8
pubmed: 16970211
Med Health Care Philos. 2017 Sep;20(3):365-371
pubmed: 28289851
Hastings Cent Rep. 2005 May-Jun;35(3):20-2
pubmed: 16092395
Hastings Cent Rep. 2005 May-Jun;35(3):22-3
pubmed: 16092396
Hastings Cent Rep. 2005 May-Jun;35(3):16-9
pubmed: 16092394
HEC Forum. 2021 Dec;33(4):325-343
pubmed: 32253568
Clin Ethics. 2017 Sep;12(3):150-165
pubmed: 28989327
J Med Ethics. 2019 Oct;45(10):631-635
pubmed: 31395693
BMJ. 1996 Jul 6;313(7048):13-6
pubmed: 8664760
Clin Neurophysiol. 2015 Mar;126(3):558-64
pubmed: 25082091
Med Health Care Philos. 2017 Jun;20(2):187-193
pubmed: 27581426
BMC Med Ethics. 2019 Dec 30;20(1):91
pubmed: 31884958
Hastings Cent Rep. 2005 May-Jun;35(3):24-7
pubmed: 16092397
Hastings Cent Rep. 2019 May;49(3):18-25
pubmed: 31269258
JAMA. 1990 Jan 19;263(3):426-30
pubmed: 2403610
N Engl J Med. 2005 Apr 21;352(16):1630-3
pubmed: 15784658
Paediatr Anaesth. 2008 Nov;18(11):1089-95
pubmed: 18950333
Clin Med (Lond). 2003 May-Jun;3(3):249-54
pubmed: 12848260

Auteurs

Mario Picozzi (M)

Center for Clinical Ethics, Biotechnology and Life Sciences Department, University of Insubria, Varese, Italy. mario.picozzi@uninsubria.it.
Clinical and Experimental Medicine and Medical Humanities-PhD Program, Via Ottorino Rossi 9, 21100, Varese, Italy. mario.picozzi@uninsubria.it.

Lino Panzeri (L)

Department of Law, Economics and Cultures, University of Insubria, Via Sant'Abbondio 12, 22100, Como, Italy.

Davide Torri (D)

ASST Dei Sette Laghi - S.C. Medicina Legale, Viale Borri, 57, 21100, Varese, Italy.

Davide Sattin (D)

Clinical and Experimental Medicine and Medical Humanities-PhD Program, Via Ottorino Rossi 9, 21100, Varese, Italy.
Neurology Public Health and Disability Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Neurologico C. Besta, Via Celoria 11, 20133, Milan, Italy.

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