PubMedDate not supplied
Each year fatalities in the United States increase as a result of gunshot wounds to the head. This increase, coupled with the progressive limitation of medical and economic resources available at major trauma centers, has brought into question the concept that everything possible should be done to save the lives of victims, who have only a minimal and nonpredictable chance of having a good outcome. Thus, consideration must be given to the economics of treating cranial gunshot wounds and the relationship of this treatment to outcome. When a good outcome can be predicted, treatment should be aggressive. However, when a good outcome cannot be predicted, surgical intervention will have no effect and the potential costs of aggressive treatment must also be considered. Clearly, there are ethical dilemmas involved in withholding operative treatment from any individual, even if there is only a minimal chance of a reasonable neurologic recovery. A negotiation-based approach should be used in determining the medical and ethical benefits of aggressive management strategies. Unfortunately, the care of critically ill patients is inconsistent with this approach. In order to insure that the best decision is made, guidelines dictating when to surgically intervene must be made an essential part of the patient/health care provider negotiation--even in worst case scenarios. The combination of an extremely poor prognosis for these injuries, and economic constraints faced by government-run facilities today could suggest that some patients should be allowed to die. Thus, the physician must be a source of information for the families, providing support and becoming a decision-making partner regarding potential intervention. In each situation, a strict set of guidelines must be formulated to establish a moral foundation for the ultimate mutual decision.