Next of kin's reactions to results of functional neurodiagnostics of disorders of consciousness: a question of information delivery or of differing epistemic beliefs?

  • Our recent publication in Neuroethics re-constructed the perspectives of family caregivers of patients with disorders of consciousness (DOC) on functional neurodiagnostics (Schembs et al., Neuroethics, 2020). Two papers criticized some of our methodological decisions (Peterson, Neuroethics, 2020; Andersen et al., Neuroethics, 2020) and commented on some conclusions. In this commentary, we would like to further explain our methodological decisions. Despite the limitations of our findings, which we readily acknowledged, we continue to think they entail valid hypotheses that need further investigation. We conclude that some caregivers with high hopes for the recovery of their loved ones with DOC will most likely not consider results of functional neuroimaging as guiding information for treatment decisions, despite efforts taken to deliver information to them. Caregivers of that type might argue that such test-results are not a reliable source of information for the judgement of whetherOur recent publication in Neuroethics re-constructed the perspectives of family caregivers of patients with disorders of consciousness (DOC) on functional neurodiagnostics (Schembs et al., Neuroethics, 2020). Two papers criticized some of our methodological decisions (Peterson, Neuroethics, 2020; Andersen et al., Neuroethics, 2020) and commented on some conclusions. In this commentary, we would like to further explain our methodological decisions. Despite the limitations of our findings, which we readily acknowledged, we continue to think they entail valid hypotheses that need further investigation. We conclude that some caregivers with high hopes for the recovery of their loved ones with DOC will most likely not consider results of functional neuroimaging as guiding information for treatment decisions, despite efforts taken to deliver information to them. Caregivers of that type might argue that such test-results are not a reliable source of information for the judgement of whether their loved one is likely going to recover or not (prognosis). We introduce the concept of epistemic beliefs to formulate this hypothesis and suggest that future qualitative studies in this area should be aware of such beliefs when investigating the effects of functional neurodiagnostics on knowledge communication and shared decision making for patients with DOC.show moreshow less

Download full text files

Export metadata

Statistics

Number of document requests

Additional Services

Share in Twitter Search Google Scholar
Metadaten
Author:Katja Kuehlmeyer, Andreas BenderGND, Ralf J. Jox, Eric Racine, Maria Ruhfass, Leah Schembs
URN:urn:nbn:de:bvb:384-opus4-1139037
Frontdoor URLhttps://opus.bibliothek.uni-augsburg.de/opus4/113903
ISSN:1874-5490OPAC
ISSN:1874-5504OPAC
Parent Title (English):Neuroethics
Publisher:Springer
Place of publication:Berlin
Type:Article
Language:English
Year of first Publication:2021
Publishing Institution:Universität Augsburg
Release Date:2024/07/09
Volume:14
Issue:3
First Page:357
Last Page:363
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-021-09462-y
Institutes:Medizinische Fakultät
Medizinische Fakultät / Lehrstuhl für Neurorehabilitation
Dewey Decimal Classification:6 Technik, Medizin, angewandte Wissenschaften / 61 Medizin und Gesundheit / 610 Medizin und Gesundheit
Licence (German):CC-BY 4.0: Creative Commons: Namensnennung (mit Print on Demand)