Download PDF
Semin Speech Lang 2020; 41(03): 232-240
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1710324
Review Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Autonomy and the Patient with Right Hemisphere Cognitive-Communication Deficits: Ethical Considerations in Rehabilitation Practice

Leora R. Cherney
1   Think and SpeakLab, Shirley Ryan AbilityLab, Chicago, Illinois
2   Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois
,
Laura Kinsey
1   Think and SpeakLab, Shirley Ryan AbilityLab, Chicago, Illinois
,
Elissa Larkin Conlon
1   Think and SpeakLab, Shirley Ryan AbilityLab, Chicago, Illinois
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
25 June 2020 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Clinicians must often contend with ethical issues that arise during rehabilitation. When a patient has right hemisphere damage (RHD), these concerns may be exacerbated because of the presence of cognitive deficits. In this article, we focus on the ethical principle of respect for autonomy, which raises issues relevant to patients with RHD who have impaired executive control functions. Respect for autonomy involves respecting others in terms of their decision-making and subsequent actions. Disagreements may occur between members of the rehabilitation team, the patient, and family about the decisions that the patient makes. Clinicians may have concerns about the patient's capacity to make informed decisions. Indeed, in some cases, because the patient is “talking,” the verbal skills may mask the impairments in underlying cognitive processes. We provide two case examples of patients with RHD with sufficient language skills to express their choices, but cognitive deficits that affect their decision-making abilities. We use a clinical decision-making model adapted from Jonsen et al to discuss the cases. In both cases, the rehabilitation team strives to balance what they deem to be in the best interest of the patient while continuing to respect the patient's autonomy.

Keywords

autonomy - right hemisphere stroke - executive function - decisional capacity - cognition

Financial Disclosure

Preparation of this manuscript was supported by the Coleman Foundation.


 

  • References

  • 1 Jonsen AR, Siegler M, Winslade WJ. Clinical Ethics: A Practical Approach to Ethical Decisions in Clinical Medicine, 8th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education; 2015
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Tompkins CA. Rehabilitation for cognitive-communication disorders in right hemisphere brain damage. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2012; 93 (01) S61-S69
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Blake ML. The Right Hemisphere and Disorders of Cognition and Communication. San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing, Inc.; 2018
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Stein MS, Kilbride C, Reynolds FA. What are the functional outcomes of right hemisphere stroke patients with or without hemi-inattention complications? A critical narrative review and suggestions for further research. Disabil Rehabil 2016; 38 (04) 315-328
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Hewetson R, Cornwell P, Shum D. Social participation following right hemisphere stroke: Influence of a cognitive-communication disorder. Aphasiology 2018; 32 (02) 164-182
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Wainapel SF, Morice K. Ethical issues commonly managed during rehabilitation. PM&R Knowledge NOW. 2014 . Available at: https://now.aapmr.org/ethical-issues-commonly-managed-during-rehabilitation . Accessed January 3, 2020
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Hunt MR, Ells C. A patient-centered care ethics analysis model for rehabilitation. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2013; 92 (09) 818-827
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Blackburn E, Durocher E, Feldman D. , et al. Supporting, promoting, respecting and advocating: a scoping study of rehabilitation professionals' responses to patient autonomy. Can J Bioeth 2018; 1 (03) 22-34
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Sim J. Respect for autonomy: issues in neurological rehabilitation. Clin Rehabil 1998; 12 (01) 3-10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Blackmer J. Ethical issues in rehabilitation medicine. Scand J Rehabil Med 2000; 32 (02) 51-55
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Kirschner KL, Stocking C, Wagner LB, Foye SJ, Siegler M. Ethical issues identified by rehabilitation clinicians. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2001; 82 (12) (Suppl. 02) S2-S8
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Cherney LR. Ethical issues involving the right hemisphere stroke patient: to treat or not to treat?. Top Stroke Rehabil 2006; 13 (04) 47-53
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Gillon R. Autonomy and the principle of respect for autonomy. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1985; 290 (6484): 1806-1808
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Hunt MR, Ells C. Partners towards autonomy: risky choices and relational autonomy in rehabilitation care. Disabil Rehabil 2011; 33 (11) 961-967
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Cardol M, De Jong BA, Ward CD. On autonomy and participation in rehabilitation. Disabil Rehabil 2002; 24 (18) 970-974 , discussion 975–1004
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Collopy BJ. Autonomy in long term care: some crucial distinctions. Gerontologist 1988; 28 (Suppl): 10-17
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 McCullough LB, Molinari V, Workman RH. Implications of impaired executive control functions for patient autonomy and surrogate decision making. J Clin Ethics 2001; 12 (04) 397-405
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Roger VL, Go AS, Lloyd-Jones DM. , et al; American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Executive summary: heart disease and stroke statistics--2012 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2012; 125 (01) 188-197
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 CMS.gov. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Inpatient Rehabilitation. Available at: https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Provider-Enrollment-and-Certification/CertificationandComplianc/InpatientRehab . Accessed December 31, 2019
    PubMed
  • 20 Camicia M, Wang H, DiVita M, Mix J, Niewczyk P. Length of stay at inpatient rehabilitation facility and stroke patient outcomes. Rehabil Nurs 2016; 41 (02) 78-90
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Patient Self-Determination Act. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990. Public Law 1990(101–508):4206
    PubMed
  • 22 Horner J, Modayil M, Chapman LR, Dinh A. Consent, refusal, and waivers in patient-centered dysphagia care: Using law, ethics, and evidence to guide clinical practice. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2016; 25 (04) 453-469
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Berkowitz K, Chanko B, Foglia M, Fox E, Powell T. Ethics Consultation: Responding to Ethics Questions in Health Care. 2nd ed. Veterans Health Administration. National Center for Ethics in Health Care; 2015
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Council on Academic Accreditation. Audiology-Speech-Language Pathology-American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Accreditation Standards for Graduate Programs. 2017 ; Available at: https://caa.asha.org/wp-content/uploads/Accreditation-Standards-for-Graduate-Programs.pdf . Accessed December 23, 2019
    PubMed
  • 25 Barry MJ, Edgman-Levitan S. Shared decision making--pinnacle of patient-centered care. N Engl J Med 2012; 366 (09) 780-781
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Respect for autonomy. In: Beauchamp T, Childress JF. , eds. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 8th ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2019: 99-154
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Fields LM, Calvert JD. Informed consent procedures with cognitively impaired patients: A review of ethics and best practices. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 2015; 69 (08) 462-471
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH). Advanced Directives. Available at: http://www.dph.illinois.gov/topics-services/health-care-regulation/nursing-homes/advance-directives . Accessed December, 31, 2019
    PubMed
  • 29 Appelbaum PS, Grisso T. Assessing patients' capacities to consent to treatment. N Engl J Med 1988; 319 (25) 1635-1638
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Young JM, Everett B. When patients choose to live at risk: What is an ethical approach to intervention?. B C Med J. 2018; 60 (06) 314-318
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Toglia J, Kirk U. Understanding awareness deficits following brain injury. NeuroRehabilitation 2000; 15 (01) 57-70
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar