Article Text
Abstract
The rule of rescue describes the powerful human proclivity to rescue identified endangered lives, regardless of cost or risk. Deciding whether or not to perform a decompressive craniectomy as a life-saving or ‘rescue’ procedure for a young person with a severe traumatic brain injury provides a good example of the ethical tensions that occur in these situations. Unfortunately, there comes a point when the primary brain injury is so severe that if the patient survives they are likely to remain severely disabled and fully dependent. The health resource implications of this outcome are significant. By using a web-based outcome prediction model this study compares the long-term outcome and designation of two groups of patients. One group had a very severe injury as adjudged by the model and the other group a less severe injury. At 18 month follow-up there were significant differences in outcome and healthcare requirements. This raises important ethical issues when considering life-saving but non-restorative surgical intervention. The discussion about realistic outcome cannot be dichotomised into simply life or death so that the outcome for the patient must enter the equation. As in other ‘rescue situations’, the utility of the procedure cannot be rationalised on a mere cost–benefit analysis. A compromise has to be reached to determine at what point either the likely outcome would be unacceptable to the person on whom the procedure is being performed or the social utility gained from the rule of rescue intervention fails to justify the utilitarian value and justice of equitable resource allocation.
- Rule of rescue
- decision making
- outcomes
- neurotrauma
- clinical ethics
- surgery
- end of life care
- surgery
- status of embryo
- professional discipline
- philosophy and psychiatry
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Competing interests None.
Ethics approval This study was approved by Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital human research ethics committee.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Linked Articles
- The concise argument
Other content recommended for you
- Ethical considerations for performing decompressive craniectomy as a life-saving intervention for severe traumatic brain injury
- Traumatic brain injuries in older adults—6 years of data for one UK trauma centre: retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data
- Traumatic subdural haematoma: integrating case-based clinical judgement with guidelines
- Traumatic brain injury in adults
- Long-term survival with unfavourable outcome: a qualitative and ethical analysis
- Predictive value of S-100β protein for prognosis in patients with moderate and severe traumatic brain injury: systematic review and meta-analysis
- Neuroendocrine disorders after traumatic brain injury
- Prospective observational cohort study on epidemiology, treatment and outcome of patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) in German BG hospitals
- Intracranial pressure monitoring in severe traumatic brain injury
- Neurotrauma and the RUB: where tragedy meets ethics and science