Just before Drs. Jennet and Plum invented the term “persistent vegetative state” in 1972,  I started working with many comatose patients as a young ICU nurse. Despite the skepticism of my colleagues, I talked to these patients as if they were awake because I believed it was worth doing, especially if it is true that hearing is the last sense to go. And why not do it to respect the patient as a person?

Then one day a 17 year old young man I will call “Mike” was admitted to our ICU in a coma and on a ventilator after a horrific car accident. The neurosurgeon who examined him predicted he would be dead by morning or become a “vegetable.” The doctor recommended that he not be resuscitated if his heart stopped.

But “Mike” didn’t die and almost 2 years later returned to our ICU fully recovered and told us that he would only respond to me at first and refused to respond to the doctor because he was angry when heard the doctor call him a “vegetable” when the doctor assumed ‘Mike” was comatose!

After that, every nurse was told to treat all our coma patients as if they were fully awake. We were rewarded when several other coma patients later woke up.

Over the years, I’ve written about several other patients like “Jack”, “Katie” and “Chris” in comas or “persistent vegetative states” who regained full or some consciousness with verbal and physical stimulation. I have also recommended Jane Hoyt’s wonderful 1994 pamphlet “A Gentle Approach-Interacting with a Person who is Semi-Conscious  or Presumed in Coma” to help families and others stimulate consciousness. Personally, I have only seen one person who did not improve from the so-called “vegetative” state during the approximately two years I saw him

Since then, I have written several blogs on unexpected recoveries from severe brain injuries, most recently the 2018 blog “Medical Experts Now Agree that Severely Brain-injured Patients are Often Misdiagnosed and May Recover” and my 2020 blog “Surprising New Test for Predicting Recovery after Coma

However, there is now a new article in the Journal of Neurotrauma titled “Prognostication and Goals of Care Decisions in Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: A Survey of The Seattle International Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Consensus Conference Working Group” about a panel of 42 physicians and surgeons recognized for their expertise of traumatic brain injury that states:

“Overall, panelists felt that it would be beneficial for physicians to improve consensus on what constitutes an acceptable neurological outcome and what chance of achieving that outcome is acceptable. “Over 50% of panelists felt that if it was certain to be enduring, a vegetative state or lower severe disability would justify a withdrawal of care decision.” (Emphasis added)

In addition:

“92.7% of respondents somewhat or strongly agreed that there is a lack of consensus among physicians as to what constitutes a good or bad neurological outcome (Fig. 3A). Similarly, 95.1% of respondents somewhat or strongly agreed that there is a lack of consensus among physicians as to what constitutes an acceptable chance of achieving a good neurological outcome.” (All emphasis added)

RESPONSIBILITY FOR WITHDRAWAL OF CARE DECISIONS

As the article states:

“Although many would report that decision making following devastating TBI is the responsibility of well-informed substitute decision makers familiar with the wishes of a patient,^12,25 our survey confirms that the relationship between clinicians and decision makers is complex. As our panelists recognize the marked influence that physicians have on aggressiveness of care, it would seem that in many cases physicians are actually the decision makers and that substitute decision makers are limited by the perceptions (communicated to them. (Emphasis added)

CONCLUSION

Legally, the issue of who makes the decision when treatment or care can be withdrawn as “medically futile” varies.

Often ethics committees are called in to review a situation. Sometimes, as in the Simon Crosier case, families can be unaware that treatment is being withdrawn.

For years, Texas has had a controversial “futile care” law that allows treatment to be withdrawn with the patient or family having only 10 days to find another facility willing to provide care. This was challenged in court and was successful in the Baby Tinslee Lewis’ case . Tinslee eventually went home.

Now a new bill H B3162 has passed in the Texas legislature and is headed to the Governor to be signed and Texas Right to Life states that:

“HB 3162 modifies several aspects of the Texas Advance Directives Act, including the 10-Day Rule. The bill by Representative Klick offers more protections to patients, such as:

• Requiring the hospital to perform a procedure necessary to facilitate a transfer before the countdown may begin, 
• Specifying that the process cannot be imposed on competent patients, 
• Prohibiting decisions from being based on perceived “quality of life” judgments, and 
• Giving the family more notice of the ethics committee meeting and more days to secure a transfer.”

Every state should consider having such protections for vulnerable patients and their families.