Authors: Jannick Brennum Carolina Magdalene Maier Kerstin Almdal Christina Malling Engelmann Mickey Gjerris
Publish Date: 2014/12/21
Volume: 157, Issue: 2, Pages: 155-164
Abstract
Both patients and experts accepted the premise of balancing neurological function versus longevity Some patients would accept an increased risk of permanent neurological deficits in order to obtain a chance of increased survival There was a significant variance in what constituted “quality of life” both between patients and for the individual patient over timeIn important lifechanging decisions there is no “one size fits all” We find that it is ethically acceptable to offer more extensive surgery than is possible within the concept of maximal safe surgery as a treatment option when balancing the principles of beneficence nonmaleficience autonomy and justice supports the decision At the same time it must be remembered that even when the patients have made a wellinformed decision some will regret it In that situation it will be our job as healthcare professionals to support them and help carry some of this burden
Keywords: