Book contents
- Ethics in Neurosurgical Practice
- Ethics in Neurosurgical Practice
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Introduction
- Part I General Ethics
- Chapter 1 Introduction to Ethics and Ethical Theory
- Chapter 2 Models and Methods in Ethics
- Chapter 3 The Concept and Implementation of Values-Based Medicine (VsBM) in Neurosurgery
- Chapter 4 The Three Functions of Consent in Neurosurgery
- Chapter 5 Withholding and Withdrawing Medical Treatment: Legal, Ethical, and Practical Considerations
- Chapter 6 Surgical Training
- Chapter 7 The Aging Surgeon
- Chapter 8 Healthcare Economics
- Chapter 9 Patient Data, Ownership, Storage, and Social Media
- Part II Neurosurgery-Specific Bioethics
- Part III Future Developments
- Index
- References
Chapter 5 - Withholding and Withdrawing Medical Treatment: Legal, Ethical, and Practical Considerations
from Part I - General Ethics
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 May 2020
Edited by
Book contents
- Ethics in Neurosurgical Practice
- Ethics in Neurosurgical Practice
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Introduction
- Part I General Ethics
- Chapter 1 Introduction to Ethics and Ethical Theory
- Chapter 2 Models and Methods in Ethics
- Chapter 3 The Concept and Implementation of Values-Based Medicine (VsBM) in Neurosurgery
- Chapter 4 The Three Functions of Consent in Neurosurgery
- Chapter 5 Withholding and Withdrawing Medical Treatment: Legal, Ethical, and Practical Considerations
- Chapter 6 Surgical Training
- Chapter 7 The Aging Surgeon
- Chapter 8 Healthcare Economics
- Chapter 9 Patient Data, Ownership, Storage, and Social Media
- Part II Neurosurgery-Specific Bioethics
- Part III Future Developments
- Index
- References
Summary
Consent also serves a third function - the relational function - by providing an environment that fosters relationships of trust between the treating team, the patient and their family. In neurosurgery, where patients are faced with death and have few if any choices open to them beyond surgery, and where surgery is very risky and its’ outcomes difficult to predict, it can be argued that the permissive and risk functions of consent become less important, and the relational function comes to the fore.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Ethics in Neurosurgical Practice , pp. 39 - 53Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Gedge, E., Giacomini, M., Cook, D. Withholding and withdrawing life support in critical care settings: ethical issues concerning consent. J. Med. Ethics 2007; 33: 215–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Honeybul, S., Gillett, G. R., Ho, K. Futility in neurosurgery: a patient-centered approach. Neurosurgery 2013; 73: 917–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stewart, C. Futility determination as a process: problems with medical sovereignty, legal issues and the strengths and weakness of the procedural approach. J. Bioeth. Inq. 2011; 8: 155–63.Google Scholar
Keown, J. The legal revolution: from ‘sanctity of life’ to ‘quality of life’ and ‘autonomy’. J. Contemp. Health Law Policy 1998; 14: 253–85.Google ScholarPubMed
Ammar, A. Influence of different culture on neurosurgical practice. Childs Nerv. Syst. 1997; 13: 91–4.Google Scholar
Emmerich, N., Gordjin, B. A morally permissible moral mistake? reinterpreting a thought experiment as proof of concept. J. Bioeth. Inq. 2018; 15: 269–78.Google Scholar
Lø, U. Withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment: ethically equivalent? Am. J. Bioeth. 2019; 19: 10–20.Google Scholar
Welie, J. V., Ten Have, H. A. The ethics of forgoing life-sustaining treatment: theoretical considerations and clinical decision making. Multidiscip. Respir. Med. 2014; 9: 14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilkinson, D., Savulescu, J. A costly separation between withdrawing and withholding treatment in intensive care. Bioethics 2014; 28: 127–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schaller, C., Kessler, M. On the difficulty of neurosurgical end of life decisions. J. Med. Ethics 2006; 32: 65–9.Google Scholar
Carrier, E. R., Reschovsky, J. D., Mello, M. M., et al. Physicians’ fears of malpractice lawsuits are not assuaged by tort reforms. Health Aff. (Millwood) 2010; 29: 1585–92.Google Scholar