How prehospital emergency personnel manage ethical challenges: the importance of confidence, trust, and safety.

BACKGROUND: Ethical challenges constitute an inseparable part of daily decision-making processes in all areas of healthcare. Ethical challenges are associated with moral distress that can lead to burnout. Clinical ethics support has proven useful to address and manage such challenges. This paper explores how prehospital emergency personnel manage ethical challenges. The study is part of a larger action research project to develop and test an approach to clinical ethics support that is sensitive to the context of emergency medicine. METHODS: We explored ethical challenges and management strategies in three focus groups, with 15 participants in total, each attended by emergency medical technicians, paramedics, and prehospital anaesthesiologists. Focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. The approach to data analysis was systematic text condensation approach. RESULTS: We stratified the management of ethical challenges into actions before, during, and after incidents. Before incidents, participants stressed the importance of mutual understandings, shared worldviews, and a supportive approach to managing emotions. During an incident, the participants employed moral perception, moral judgments, and moral actions. After an incident, the participants described sharing ethical challenges only to a limited extent as sharing was emotionally challenging, and not actively supported by workplace culture, or organisational procedures. The participants primarily managed ethical challenges informally, often using humour to cope. CONCLUSION: Our analysis supports and clarifies that confidence, trust, and safety in relation to colleagues, management, and the wider organisation are essential for prehospital emergency personnel to share ethical challenges and preventing moral distress turning into burnout.

Emergency use authorisation of Covid-19 vaccines: An ethical conundrum.

Large-scale vaccination with a safe and effective vaccine against Covid-19 is the only way to conquer the ongoing lethal pandemic that has led to extraordinary social and economic upheaval globally. Fortunately, the world is on the verge of developing Covid-19 vaccines in an unprecedentedly short time. More than forty vaccines are in different stages of clinical trials, and a few are in the crucial phase III studies stage. A new demand for emergency use authorisation and rapid deployment of these vaccines before scrutinising phase III trial data is raging in different quarters. Can advancement of the deployment of these vaccines by even a few weeks give us rich public health dividends? Would it be ethical to deploy these novel vaccines based only on the safety and immunogenicity data generated by the phase-I and II clinical trials? Would it be ethical to deny vaccination of vulnerable populations against an untreatable infectious disease despite the availability of reasonably safe and efficacious vaccines for the want of phase III trial data? The answer is not straightforward, as there are many complexities involved. This commentary attempts to discuss some ethical issues involved in a decision to deploy Covid-19 vaccination before phase III trial results are declared.

Factors associated with physician decision making on withholding cardiopulmonary resuscitation in prehospital medicine.

This study seeks to identify factors that are associated with decisions of prehospital physicians to start (continue, if ongoing) or withhold (terminate, if ongoing) CPR in patients with OHCA. We conducted a retrospective study using anonymised data from a prehospital physician response system. Data on patients attended for cardiac arrest between January 1st, 2010 and December 31st, 2018 except babies at birth were included. Logistic regression analysis with start of CPR by physicians as the dependent variable and possible associated factors as independent variables adjusted for anonymised physician identifiers was conducted. 1525 patient data sets were analysed. Obvious signs of death were present in 278 cases; in the remaining 1247, resuscitation was attempted in 920 (74%) and were withheld in 327 (26%). Factors significantly associated with higher likelihood of CPR by physicians (OR 95% CI) were resuscitation efforts by EMS before physician arrival (60.45, 19.89-184.29), first monitored heart rhythm (3.07, 1.21-7.79 for PEA; 29.25, 1.93-442. 51 for VF / pVT compared to asystole); advanced patient age (modelled using cubic splines), physician response time (0.92, 0.87-0.97 per minute) and malignancy (0.22, 0.05-0.92) were significantly associated with lower odds of CPR. We thus conclude that prehospital physicians make decisions to start or withhold resuscitation routinely and base those mostly on situational information and immediately available patient information known to impact outcomes.

Managing ethical aspects of advance directives in emergency care services.

BACKGROUND: In Hospital Emergency Department and Emergency Medical Services professionals experience situations in which they face difficulties or barriers to know patient's advance directives and implement them. OBJECTIVES: To analyse the barriers, facilitators, and ethical conflicts perceived by health professionals derived from the management of advance directives in emergency services. RESEARCH DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS, AND CONTEXT: This is a qualitative phenomenological study conducted with purposive sampling including a population of nursing and medical professionals linked to Hospital Emergency Department and Emergency Medical Services. Three focus groups were formed, totalling 24 participants. We performed an inductive-type thematic discourse analysis. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: This study was approved by ethical committees of Ethical Commitee of Clínic Hospital (Barcelona) and Comittee of Emergency Medical Services (Barcelona). The participants received information about the purpose of the study. Patients' anonymity and willingness to participate in the study were guaranteed. FINDINGS: There were four types of barriers that hindered the proper management of patients' advance directives in Hospital Emergency Department and Emergency Medical Services: personal and professional, family members, organisational and structural, and those derived from the health system. These barriers caused ethical conflicts and hindered professionals' decision-making. DISCUSSION: These results are in line with those of previous studies and indicate that factors such as gender, professional category, and years of experience, in addition to professionals' beliefs and the opinions of colleagues and family members, can also influence the professionals' final decisions. CONCLUSION: The different strategies described in this study can contribute to the development of health policies and action protocols to help reduce both the barriers that hinder the correct management and implementation of advance directives and the ethical conflicts generated.

State Preparedness for Crisis Standards of Care in the United States: Implications for Emergency Management.

State governments and hospital facilities are often unprepared to handle a complex medical crisis, despite a moral and ethical obligation to be prepared for disaster. The 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has drawn attention to the lack of state guidance on how hospitals should provide care in a crisis. When the resources available are insufficient to treat the current patient load, crisis standards of care (CSC) are implemented to provide care to the population in an ethical manner, while maintaining an ability to handle the surge. This Editorial aims to raise awareness concerning a lack of preparedness that calls for immediate correction at the state and local level.Analysis of state guidelines for implementation of CSC demonstrates a lack of preparedness, as only five states in the US have appropriately completed necessary plans, despite a clear understanding of the danger. States have a legal responsibility to regulate the medical care within their borders. Failure of hospital facilities to properly prepare for disasters is not a new issue; Hurricane Katrina (2005) demonstrated a lack of planning and coordination. Improving disaster health care readiness in the United States requires states to create new policy and legislative directives for the health care facilities within their respective jurisdictions. Hospitals should have clear directives to prepare for disasters as part of a "duty to care" and to ensure that the necessary planning and supplies are available to their employees.

A Primer on the Good Samaritan Act.

This article explores the various legal and ethical facets for healthcare professionals to consider in order to avoid legal liability when rendering aid in an emergency. A general overview of Good Samaritan legislation enacted throughout the United States is discussed along with varying levels of assistance required or protected by law in selected states. Moral considerations for Christian nurses are addressed.

Patient and surrogate attitudes via an interviewer-administered survey on exception from informed consent enrollment in the Prehospital Air Medical Plasma (PAMPer) trial.

OBJECTIVES: With increased focus on early resuscitation methods following injury to improve patient outcomes, studies are employing exception from informed consent (EFIC) enrollment. Few studies have assessed patients' opinions following participation in an EFIC study, and none have been conducted within the realm of traumatic hemorrhage. We surveyed those patients and surrogates previously enrolled in the Prehospital Air Medical Plasma (PAMPer) Trial to clarify their opinions related to consent and emergency research. METHODS: Telephone calls were made between January-June 2019 to all patients who were enrolled under EFIC in the PAMPer study at the Pittsburgh site (169 of the 501 total patients enrolled, May 2014-Oct 2017) and their surrogates. Questions gauging approval of EFIC enrollment were asked before discussion of PAMPer trial outcomes, after disclosure of positive outcomes, and after a hypothetical negative trial outcome was proposed. RESULTS: Of the total 647 telephone calls made, ninety-three interviews, reflecting 70 of 169 patient enrollments, were conducted. This included 13 in which only the patient was interviewed, 23 in which the patient and a surrogate were interviewed, and 34 in which only a surrogate was interviewed. Nearly half (48.4%) of respondents did not recall their personal or family member enrollment in the study. No patients or surrogates recalled hearing about the study through community consultation or being aware of opt out procedures. Patients and surrogates were glad they were enrolled (90.3%), agreed with EFIC use for their personal enrollment (88.17%), and agreed with the general use of EFIC for the PAMPer study (81.7%). Disclosure of the true positive PAMPer study outcome resulted in a significant increase in opinions regarding personal enrollment, EFIC for personal enrollment, and EFIC for general enrollment (all p < 0.001). Disclosure of a hypothetical neutral or negative study outcome resulted in significant decreases in opinions regarding EFIC for personal enrollment (p = 0.003) and EFIC for general enrollment (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical trial participants with traumatic hemorrhagic shock enrolled with EFIC, and surrogates of such participants, are generally accepting of EFIC. The results of the trial in which EFIC was utilized significantly affected patient and surrogate agreement with personal and general EFIC enrollment.

Informed consent procedures for emergency interventional research in patients with traumatic brain injury and ischaemic stroke.

Health-care professionals and researchers have a legal and ethical responsibility to inform patients before carrying out diagnostic tests or treatment interventions as part of a clinical study. Interventional research in emergency situations can involve patients with some degree of acute cognitive impairment, as is regularly the case in traumatic brain injury and ischaemic stroke. These patients or their proxies are often unable to provide informed consent within narrow therapeutic time windows. International regulations and national laws are criticised for being inconclusive or restrictive in providing solutions. Currently accepted consent alternatives are deferred consent, exception from consent, or waiver of consent. However, these alternatives appear under-utilised despite being ethically permissible, socially acceptable, and regulatorily compliant. We anticipate that, when the requirements for medical urgency are properly balanced with legal and ethical conduct, the increased use of these alternatives has the potential to improve the efficiency and quality of future emergency interventional studies in patients with an inability to provide informed consent.

Research in global health emergencies

In January 2020, we published the findings of a two year in-depth inquiry into the ethical issues relating to research in global health emergencies. The inquiry was run by an international working group which gathered evidence and experience from many contributors across the globe. Better evidence about what helps or doesn’t help during an emergency is needed in order to improve the response to global health emergencies. Research conducted during an emergency itself plays a crucial role in obtaining this evidence, and helps support the immediate response, as well as learning for the future. The aim of the report is to identify ways in which research can be undertaken ethically during emergencies, in order to promote the contribution that ethically-conducted research can make to improving current and future emergency preparedness and response. We have made 24 recommendations to ‘duty bearers’ such as research funders, research organisations, governments, and researchers. These are summarised in our call for action. We suggest changes that would align their policies and practices more closely to three core values of fairness, equal respect, and helping reduce suffering. The report presents these values in the form of an ‘ethical compass’ to guide the conduct of the very wide range of people involved in research in global health emergencies.

Obstetric hospital preparedness for a pandemic: an obstetric critical care perspective in response to COVID-19.

The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has had a rapid and deadly onset, spreading quickly throughout the world. Pregnant patients have had high mortality rates, perinatal losses, and Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admissions from acute respiratory syndrome Coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) in the past. Potentially, a surge of patients may require hospitalization and ICU care beyond the capacity of the health care system. This article is to provide institutional guidance on how to prepare an obstetric hospital service for a pandemic, mass casualty, or natural disaster by identifying a care model and resources for a large surge of critically ill pregnant patients over a short time. We recommend a series of protocols, education, and simulation training, with a structured and tiered approach to match the needs for the patients, for hospitals specialized in obstetrics.

[Ethical guides, criteria for admission in intensive care, palliative care. Multi-society recommendations for allocation of resources during the COVID-19 pandemic]. / Guías éticas para la atención durante la pandemia COVID-19. Recomendaciones multisocietarias para asignación de recursos.

Guidelines on resource allocation, ethics, triage processes with admission and discharge criteria from critical care and palliative care units during the pandemia are here presented. The interdisciplinary and multi-society panel that prepared these guidelines represented by bioethicists and specialists linked to the end of life: clinicians, geriatricians, emergentologists, intensivists, and experts in palliative care and cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The available information indicates that approximately 80% of people with COVID-19 will develop mild symptoms and will not require hospital care, while 15% will require intermediate or general room care, and the remaining 5% will require assistance in intensive care units. The need to think about justice and establish ethical criteria for allocation patients arise in conditions of exceeding available resources, such as outbreaks of diseases and pandemics, with transparency being the main criterion for allocation. These guides recommend general criteria for the allocation of resources relies on bioethical considerations, rooted in Human Rights and based on the value of the dignity of the human person and substantial principles such as solidarity, justice and equity. The guides are recommendations of general scope and their usefulness is to accompany and sustain the technical and scientific decisions made by the different specialists in the care of critically ill patients, but given the dynamic nature of the pandemic, a process of permanent revision and adaptation of recommendations must be ensured.

Se presentan las guías sobre ética de asignación de recursos, procesos de triaje con criterios de ingreso y egreso de unidades de cuidados críticos y atención paliativa durante la pandemia. El panel interdisciplinario y multisocietario que las preparó estuvo representado por bioeticistas y por especialistas vinculados al fin de la vida: clínicos, geriatras, emergentólogos, intensivistas, expertos en cuidados paliativos y en reanimación cardiopulmonar. La información disponible indica que aproximadamente 80% de las personas con COVID-19 desarrollarán síntomas leves y no requerirán asistencia hospitalaria, mientras que 15% precisará cuidados intermedios o en salas generales, y el 5% restante requerirá de asistencia en unidades de cuidados intensivos. La necesidad de pensar en justicia y establecer criterios éticos de asignación surgen en condiciones de superación de los recursos disponibles, como en brotes de enfermedades y pandemias, siendo la transparencia el principal criterio para la asignación. Estas guías recomiendan criterios generales de asignación de recursos en base a consideraciones bioéticas, enraizadas en los Derechos Humanos y sustentadas en el valor de la dignidad de la persona humana y principios sustanciales como la solidaridad, la justicia y la equidad. Las guías son recomendaciones de alcance general y su utilidad consiste en acompañar y sostener las decisiones técnicas y científicas que tomen los distintos especialistas en la atención del paciente crítico, pero dado el carácter dinámico de la pandemia, debe asegurarse un proceso de revisión y readaptación permanente de las recomendaciones.

Guías éticas para la atención durante la pandemia COVID-19: Recomendaciones multisocietarias para asignación de recursos / Ethical guides, criteria for admission in intensive care, palliative care. Multi-society recommendations for allocation of resources during the COVID-19 pandemic

Se presentan las guías sobre ética de asignación de recursos, procesos de triaje con criterios de ingreso y egreso de unidades de cuidados críticos y atención paliativa durante la pandemia. El panel interdisciplinario y multisocietario que las preparó estuvo representado por bioeticistas y por especialistas vinculados al fin de la vida: clínicos, geriatras, emergentólogos, intensivistas, expertos en cuidados paliativos y en reanimación cardiopulmonar. La información disponible indica que aproximadamente 80% de las personas con COVID-19 desarrollarán síntomas leves y no requerirán asistencia hospitalaria, mientras que 15% precisará cuidados intermedios o en salas generales, y el 5% restante requerirá de asistencia en unidades de cuidados intensivos. La necesidad de pensar en justicia y establecer criterios éticos de asignación surgen en condiciones de superación de los recursos disponibles, como en brotes de enfermedades y pandemias, siendo la transparencia el principal criterio para la asignación. Estas guías recomiendan criterios generales de asignación de recursos en base a consideraciones bioéticas, enraizadas en los Derechos Humanos y sustentadas en el valor de la dignidad de la persona humana y principios sustanciales como la solidaridad, la justicia y la equidad. Las guías son recomendaciones de alcance general y su utilidad consiste en acompañar y sostener las decisiones técnicas y científicas que tomen los distintos especialistas en la atención del paciente crítico, pero dado el carácter dinámico de la pandemia, debe asegurarse un proceso de revisión y readaptación permanente de las recomendaciones.

Guidelines on resource allocation, ethics, triage processes with admission and discharge criteria from critical care and palliative care units during the pandemia are here presented. The interdisciplinary and multi-society panel that prepared these guidelines represented by bioethicists and specialists linked to the end of life: clinicians, geriatricians, emergentologists, intensivists, and experts in palliative care and cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The available information indicates that approximately 80% of people with COVID-19 will develop mild symptoms and will not require hospital care, while 15% will require intermediate or general room care, and the remaining 5% will require assistance in intensive care units. The need to think about justice and establish ethical criteria for allocation patients arise in conditions of exceeding available resources, such as outbreaks of diseases and pandemics, with transparency being the main criterion for allocation. These guides recommend general criteria for the allocation of resources relies on bioethical considerations, rooted in Human Rights and based on the value of the dignity of the human person and substantial principles such as solidarity, justice and equity. The guides are recommendations of general scope and their usefulness is to accompany and sustain the technical and scientific decisions made by the different specialists in the care of critically ill patients, but given the dynamic nature of the pandemic, a process of permanent revision and adaptation of recommendations must be ensured.

Utilitarianism and the pandemic.

There are no egalitarians in a pandemic. The scale of the challenge for health systems and public policy means that there is an ineluctable need to prioritize the needs of the many. It is impossible to treat all citizens equally, and a failure to carefully consider the consequences of actions could lead to massive preventable loss of life. In a pandemic there is a strong ethical need to consider how to do most good overall. Utilitarianism is an influential moral theory that states that the right action is the action that is expected to produce the greatest good. It offers clear operationalizable principles. In this paper we provide a summary of how utilitarianism could inform two challenging questions that have been important in the early phase of the pandemic: (a) Triage: which patients should receive access to a ventilator if there is overwhelming demand outstripping supply? (b) Lockdown: how should countries decide when to implement stringent social restrictions, balancing preventing deaths from COVID-19 with causing deaths and reductions in well-being from other causes? Our aim is not to argue that utilitarianism is the only relevant ethical theory, or in favour of a purely utilitarian approach. However, clearly considering which options will do the most good overall will help societies identify and consider the necessary cost of other values. Societies may choose either to embrace or not to embrace the utilitarian course, but with a clear understanding of the values involved and the price they are willing to pay.

Ethics in the Covid-19 emergency: Examining rationing decisions.

Early last month, the Italian Society of Anaesthesia was forced to publish the above guideline (1) for the country's hospitals. Besides the rising cases of infection, the doctors realised that patients required up to 15-20 days of intensive care as the disease progressed (2). In the face of medical resource scarcities, the guideline established that everyone could not be saved from the coronavirus. And a massive death toll ensued.

[Ethics of clinical trials]. / L'éthique des essais thérapeutiques.

TITLE: L'éthique des essais thérapeutiques. ABSTRACT: La pandémie de COVID-19 a conduit certains acteurs reconnus de la médecine à renoncer aux méthodes codifiées de la recherche médicale au profit d'affirmations établies dans l'urgence et sans réelle évaluation scientifique. Autant l'on peut comprendre que certains praticiens recourent à ce qui leur est ainsi proposé, autant cette confusion entre action dans l'urgence et recherche scientifique serait lourde de conséquences si elle venait à se généraliser, et cela à de multiples points de vue : image et rôle de la science, qualité et éthique de la recherche médicale et en fin de compte sort des malades soumis à des traitements mal évalués. Ce sont ces questions qui motivent la mise au point qui suit sur les questions d'éthique associées de longue date aux « essais thérapeutiques ¼, cette procédure rationnelle d'acquisition dans les meilleurs délais d'informations fiables sur les avantages et les risques des traitements dont on envisage l'éventuelle utilisation.

Ethical conflicts in patient relationships: Experiences of ambulance nursing students.

BACKGROUND: Working as an ambulance nurse involves facing ethically problematic situations with multi-dimensional suffering, requiring the ability to create a trustful relationship. This entails a need to be clinically trained in order to identify ethical conflicts. AIM: To describe ethical conflicts in patient relationships as experienced by ambulance nursing students during clinical studies. RESEARCH DESIGN: An exploratory and interpretative design was used to inductively analyse textual data from examinations in clinical placement courses. PARTICIPANTS: The 69 participants attended a 1-year educational programme for ambulance nurses at a Swedish university. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: The research was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Participants gave voluntary informed consent for this study. FINDINGS: The students encountered ethical conflicts in patient relationships when they had inadequate access to the patient's narrative. Doubts regarding patient autonomy were due to uncertainty regarding the patient's decision-making ability, which forced students to handle patient autonomy. Conflicting assessments of the patient's best interest added to the conflicts and also meant a disruption in patient focus. The absence of trustful relationships reinforced the ethical conflicts, together with an inadequacy in meeting different needs, which limited the possibility of providing proper care. DISCUSSION: Contextual circumstances add complexity to ethical conflicts regarding patient autonomy, dependency and the patient's best interest. Students felt they were fluctuating between paternalism and letting the patient choose, and were challenged by considerations regarding the patient's communication and decision-making ability, the views of third parties, and the need for prioritisation. CONCLUSION: The essence of the patient relationship is a struggle to preserve autonomy while focusing on the patient's best interest. Hence, there is a need for education and training that promotes ethical knowledge and ethical reflection focusing on the core nursing and caring values of trust and autonomy, particularly in situations that affect the patient's decision-making ability.

Penalties for Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act Violations Involving Obstetrical Emergencies.

INTRODUCTION: The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) was intended to prevent inadequate, delayed, or denied treatment of emergent conditions by emergency departments (ED). While controversies exist regarding the scope of the law, there is no question that EMTALA applies to active labor, a key tenet of the statute and the only medical condition - labor - specifically included in the title of the law. In light of rising maternal mortality rates in the United States, further exploration into the state of emergency obstetrical (OB) care is warranted. Understanding civil monetary penalty settlements levied by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) related to EMTALA violations involving labor and other OB emergencies will help to inform the current state of access to and quality of OB emergency care. METHODS: We reviewed descriptions of all EMTALA-related OIG civil monetary penalty settlements from 2002-2018. OB-related cases were identified using keywords in settlement descriptions. We described characteristics of settlements including the nature of the allegation and compared them with non-OB settlements. RESULTS: Of 232 EMTALA-related OIG settlements during the study period, 39 (17%) involved active labor and other OB emergencies. Between 2002 and 2018 the proportion of settlements involving OB emergencies increased from 17% to 40%. Seven (18%) of these settlements involved a pregnant minor. Most OB cases involved failure to provide screening exam (82%) and/or stabilizing treatment (51%). Failure to arrange appropriate transfer was more common for OB (36%) compared with non-OB settlements (21%) (p = 0.041). Fifteen (38%) involved a provider specifically directing a pregnant woman to proceed to another hospital, typically by private vehicle. CONCLUSION: Despite inclusion of the term "labor" in the law's title, one in six settlements related to EMTALA violations involved OB emergencies. One in five settlements involved a pregnant minor, indicating that providers may benefit from education regarding obligations to evaluate and stabilize minors absent parental consent. Failure to arrange appropriate transfer was more common among OB settlements. Findings suggesting need for providers to understand EMTALA-specific requirements for appropriate transfer and for EDs at hospitals without dedicated OB services to implement policies for evaluation of active labor and protocols for transfer when indicated.

Ethical and medicolegal aspects in the management of neurosurgical emergencies among Jehovah's Witnesses: Clinical implications and review.

When an incapacitated Jehovah's Witness neurologically deteriorates and requires immediate craniectomy, institutional protocols may delay surgery if the patient's refusal of blood products is ambiguous. We are among the first to describe such an ethically contentious case in emergency neurosurgery, review the morbidity of operative delays, discuss medicolegal concerns raised, and provide a detailed guide to hemostasis in patients who refuse blood products. We discuss the case of a 46-year-old woman presented with nausea, vomiting, and right-sided weakness, progressing to stupor over several hours. When an initial Computed Tomography (CT) scan showed a large, left-sided intraparenchymal hematoma with significant midline shift, she was booked for an emergency hemicraniectomy. According to the family, she was a Jehovah's Witness and would have refused blood consent, but was without the proper documentation. Despite her worsening neurological status, an indeterminate blood consent delayed surgery for more than two hours. Her neurological exam did not improve postoperatively, and she later expired. The ethical, legal, and operative concerns that arise in the emergency neurosurgical treatment of Jehovah's Witness patients pose unique management challenges. Since operative delay is a preventable cause of mortality in patients requiring urgent craniectomy, and the likelihood of requiring a transfusion from hemorrhage is minimal, an ambiguous blood consent should not postpone a potentially life-saving treatment. For the beneficence and autonomy of Jehovah's Witness patients, institutional policies should respect the family's wishes in order to expedite surgical decompression. In addition to discussing the nuances of such ethical considerations, we also provide a detailed list of commonly used, topical and parenteral hemostatic agents from the neurosurgical operating room which, depending on whether they are blood-derived, either should or should not be used when treating a Jehovah's Witness.