Neurotrauma, COVID and the rationing of intensive care: an ethical approach.

The advent of the COVID-19 pandemic with its extreme pressure on resources and intensive care beds has prompted many healthcare providers to consider more fully the potentially futile nature of some treatments and how resources might be better managed. This is especially relevant in the context of neurosurgery which is highly resource dependent in terms of technology, funding, and manpower and it may be difficult to balance fair, equitable and sustainable resource allocation, especially in circumstances where those healthcare resources become limited or completely exhausted. Indeed, it may be necessary to consider limiting the availability of certain neurosurgical services or perhaps reconsider the utility or otherwise of performing procedures that commit very restricted resources, such as intensive care beds, to patients who are arguably receiving limited long-term benefit. In these circumstances, the decision-making paradigm is challenging and there are several ethically disparate viewpoints that need to be reconciled. These include but are not limited to, Futility, Utilitarianism and the Rule of rescue.

Considering Futility of Care Decisions in Neurosurgical Practice.

Neurosurgeons commonly encounter futility of care decisions in their practice. Are these decisions being made with adequate consideration? What is the preparation of neurosurgical trainees for making these decisions? The advent of the COVID-19 pandemic with its extreme pressure on resources and, in particular, intensive care unit beds, has prompted many health care providers including neurosurgeons to consider more fully the potentially futile nature of some treatments and how we might better manage limited resources for the future. We review the concept of futility in neurosurgery and suggest potential solutions to the multiple challenges that arise.