English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

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

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