• Joseph J Fins, Megan S Wright, and Samuel R Bagenstos.
• Division of Medical Ethics, Weill Medical College of Cornell University; The Consortium for the Advanced Study of Brain Injury, Weill Cornell Medical College and The Rockefeller University, New York NY; and Yale Law School, New Haven, CT. Electronic address: jjfins@med.cornell.edu.
• Mayo Clin. Proc. 2020 Aug 1; 95 (8): 173217391732-1739.

AbstractIn 2018, the American Academy of Neurology, the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine, and the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research published a systematic evidence-based review and an associated practice guideline for improved assessment, treatment, and rehabilitation of patients with disorders of consciousness. Patients with disorders of consciousness include individuals in the vegetative and minimally conscious states, as well as others with covert consciousness and cognitive motor dissociation. These landmark publications (concurrently published in Neurology and Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation) supplant the 1994 New England Journal of Medicine Multi-Society Task Force report on the vegetative state and the 2002 criteria establishing minimally conscious states. The guideline re-designates the permanent vegetative state as chronic. In our article, we consider the legal and ethical implications of the practice guideline for clinical practice and explain the vulnerability of these patients who suffer from high rates of misdiagnosis, inadequate medical surveillance, undertreatment of pain, inadequate rehabilitation, and segregation in chronic care. We argue that these deficiencies in medical care are inconsistent with our growing appreciation of the dynamic nature of these brain states and an emerging standard of care as articulated by the national guideline. These deficiencies also violate domestic and international disability law. To substantiate this latter claim, we apply disability law to this population, focusing on key Americans with Disabilities Act mandates, the relevance of the 1999 Supreme Court, Olmstead v. L.C., and the utility of Olmstead enforcement actions to integrate the care of these individuals into the medical mainstream.Copyright © 2020 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

19 keywords...

hide…