Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-31T22:01:59.810Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“When the Music’s Over” then “Dancing with a Partner Will Help You Find the Beat”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2021

Grant Gillett  and
Mary Butler
Grant Gillett
Affiliation:
Bioethics Centre, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
Mary Butler*
Affiliation:
Occupational Therapy, University of Adelaide, AdelaideSA, Australia
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Responses to brain injury sit in the intersection between neuroscience and an ethic of care, and require sensitive and dynamic indicators of how an individual with brain injury can learn how to live in the context of a changing environment and multiple timescales. Therapeutic relationships and rhythms underpinning such a dynamic approach are currently obscured by existing models of brain function. Something older is required and we put forward narrative types articulating outcomes of brain injury over various periods and starting points in time. Such storytelling challenges a static neuropsychological paradigm and moves from an ethics that focuses on patient autonomy into one that is reflective of the cognitive supports and therapeutic relationships that underpin ways that the patient can re-find the beat that proves the music is not over.

Keywords

brain injuryneurosciencecare ethicsbrain functionpatient autonomytherapeutic relationships
Type
Articles
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 30 , Issue 4 , October 2021 , pp. 631 - 636
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Gillett, G. Concussion in sport: The unheeded evidence. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2018;27(4):710–6. doi:10.1017/S0963180118000191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

2. Gronwall, D. Paced auditory serial-addition task: A measure of recovery from concussion. Perceptual and Motor Skills 1977;44:367–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

3. See note 1, Gillett 2018.

4. Freeman, WJ. Nonlinear brain dynamics and intention according to Aquinas. Mind and Matter 2008;6(2):207–34.Google Scholar

5. Gillett, G. Effaced enigmata: When ethics precedes neuroscience. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2017;26(4):616–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6. See note 4, Freeman 2008.

7. See note 1, Gillett 2018.

8. Kozma, R. Reflections on a giant of brain science. Cognitive Neurodynamics 2016;10(6):457–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

9. See note 2, Gronwall 1977.

10. See note 1, Gillett 2018.

11. Butler, M. Being, doing, and belonging after brain injury: An ethnographic exploration of the capabilities approach. Sites: A Journal of Anthropology and Cultural Studies 2011;8(2):57–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12. See note 8, Kozma 2016.

13. Held, V. The Ethics of Care: Personal, Political, and Global. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006.Google Scholar

14. Wittgenstein, L. Philosophical Investigations. Anscombe GEM, trans. Oxford: Blackwell; 1953.Google Scholar

15. Pieper, J. Only the Lover Sings: Art and Contemplation. Krauth, L, trans. San Francisco: Ignatius Press; 1990.Google Scholar