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

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
• 2 Tompkins CA. Rehabilitation for cognitive-communication disorders in right hemisphere brain damage. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2012; 93 (01) S61-S69
• 3 Blake ML. The Right Hemisphere and Disorders of Cognition and Communication. San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing, Inc.; 2018
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 7 Hunt MR, Ells C. A patient-centered care ethics analysis model for rehabilitation. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2013; 92 (09) 818-827
• 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
• 9 Sim J. Respect for autonomy: issues in neurological rehabilitation. Clin Rehabil 1998; 12 (01) 3-10
• 10 Blackmer J. Ethical issues in rehabilitation medicine. Scand J Rehabil Med 2000; 32 (02) 51-55
• 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
• 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
• 13 Gillon R. Autonomy and the principle of respect for autonomy. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1985; 290 (6484): 1806-1808
• 14 Hunt MR, Ells C. Partners towards autonomy: risky choices and relational autonomy in rehabilitation care. Disabil Rehabil 2011; 33 (11) 961-967
• 15 Cardol M, De Jong BA, Ward CD. On autonomy and participation in rehabilitation. Disabil Rehabil 2002; 24 (18) 970-974 , discussion 975–1004
• 16 Collopy BJ. Autonomy in long term care: some crucial distinctions. Gerontologist 1988; 28 (Suppl): 10-17
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 21 Patient Self-Determination Act. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990. Public Law 1990(101–508):4206
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 25 Barry MJ, Edgman-Levitan S. Shared decision making--pinnacle of patient-centered care. N Engl J Med 2012; 366 (09) 780-781
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 29 Appelbaum PS, Grisso T. Assessing patients' capacities to consent to treatment. N Engl J Med 1988; 319 (25) 1635-1638
• 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
• 31 Toglia J, Kirk U. Understanding awareness deficits following brain injury. NeuroRehabilitation 2000; 15 (01) 57-70