The Determination of Death

1977 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 277-296 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerald M. Devins ◽  
Robert T. Diamond
Keyword(s):  
Brain Death ◽  
Science And Technology ◽  
Medical Science ◽  
Determination Of Death ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
The Brain

Recent developments in medical science and technology have rendered obsolete the traditional medical criteria for determining death in a small but growing number of terminal patients. Philosophical problems encountered in attempts to develop a more sophisticated set of operational procedures are discussed. Both the traditional conditions indicating death as well as more recent reformulations required to pronounce a state of brain death in those moribund individuals in whom the traditional signs have been obscured are reported. Finally, some of the medical, legal, and social considerations which arise from recognition of the brain death definition are discussed briefly.

scholarly journals Pope John Paul II and the Neurological Standard for the Determination of Death: A Critical Analysis of his Address to the Transplantation Society

2017 ◽  
Vol 84 (2) ◽  
pp. 155-186 ◽  
Author(s):  
Doyen Nguyen
Keyword(s):  
Brain Death ◽  
Catholic Church ◽  
The Body ◽  
Human Organism ◽  
Determination Of Death ◽  
Pope John Paul Ii ◽  
John Paul Ii ◽  
The Brain ◽  
The Catholic Church

The introduction of the “brain death” criterion constitutes a significant paradigm shift in the determination of death. The perception of the public at large is that the Catholic Church has formally endorsed this neurological standard. However, a critical reading of the only magisterial document on this subject, Pope John Paul II's 2000 address, shows that the pope's acceptance of the neurological criterion is conditional in that it entails a twofold requirement. It requires that certain medical presuppositions of the neurological standard are fulfilled, and that its philosophical premise coheres with the Church's teaching on the body-soul union. This article demonstrates that the medical presuppositions are not fulfilled, and that the doctrine of the brain as the central somatic integrator of the body does not cohere either with the current holistic understanding of the human organism or with the Church's Thomistic doctrine of the soul as the form of the body. Summary The concept of “brain death” (the neurological basis for legally declaring a person dead) has caused much controversy since its inception. In this regard, it has been generally perceived that the Catholic Church has officially affirmed the “brain death” criterion. The address of Pope John Paul II in 2000 shows, however, that he only gave it a conditional acceptance, one which requires that several medical and philosophical presuppositions of the “brain death” standard be fulfilled. This article demonstrates, taking into consideration both the empirical evidence and the Church's Thomistic anthropology, that the presuppositions have not been fulfilled.

Challenges to the Determination of Death by Neurological Criteria

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 583-599
Author(s):  
Tadeusz Pacholczyk ◽  
Stephen Hannan ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Brain Death ◽  
Determination Of Death ◽  
Ethical Concerns ◽  
Diagnostic Practices ◽  
Testing Potential ◽  
Brain Dead ◽  
Testing Protocols ◽  
The Brain ◽  
Apnea Testing

Ethical concerns regarding the conceptual framework for the determination of death by neurological criteria, including several clinical and diagnostic practices, are addressed. The significance of a diagnosis of brain death, diagnostic criteria, and certain technical aspects of the brain-death exam are presented. Standard and ancillary tests that typically help achieve prudential certitude that an individual has died are indicated. Ethical concerns surrounding interinstitutional variability of testing protocols are evaluated and considered, as are potential apnea-testing confounders such as hypotension, hypoxemia, hypercarbia, and penumbra effects during ancillary testing. Potential adjustments to apnea-testing protocols involving capnography, thoracic impedance monitors, or spirometers to assess respiratory efforts are discussed. Situations in which individuals determined to be brain dead “wake up,” or fail to manifest the imminent cessation of somatic functioning typically seen when supported only by a ventilator, are also briefly reviewed.

The Determination of Death under Polish Law in Comparative, Historical and Medical Perspective

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-20
Author(s):  
Leszek Bosek ◽  
Witold Borysiak
Keyword(s):  
Brain Death ◽  
Determination Of Death ◽  
Medical Background ◽  
Polish Law ◽  
The Brain ◽  
Irreversible Cessation ◽  
Medical Perspective

Abstract It has been recently adopted under Polish law that the determinant of death is both the brain death criterion, tantamount to the permanent and irreversible cessation of its function, and the equally valid circulatory criterion. This means that the determination of brain death is not indispensable to pronounce a person dead, because the irreversible cessation of circulation is sufficient in this respect. The purpose of this article is to present current developments in Polish law against the comparative, historical and medical background.

Death, Brain Death, and the Limits of Science: Why the Whole-Brain Concept of Death is a Flawed Public Policy

2010 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 667-683 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mike Nair-Collins
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Brain Death ◽  
Brain Stem ◽  
Real World ◽  
Determination Of Death ◽  
Whole Brain ◽  
Legislative Changes ◽  
The Brain ◽  
Irreversible Cessation

The 1981 Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) states:An individual that has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead.The “whole-brain concept of death,” appealed to in the UDDA, has been roundly criticized for many years. However, despite a great deal of legitimate criticism in academic circles no real clinical or legislative changes have come about. At least one reason for this inertia is aptly stated by James Bernat, one of the principal and founding proponents of the brain death doctrine: “In the real world of public policy on biological issues, we must frequently make compromises or approximations to achieve acceptable practices and laws.” While acknowledging that the brain death doctrine is not flawless and that he and other proponents have been unable to address all valid criticisms, Bernat nonetheless maintains that the brain death doctrine is optimal public policy.

Brain Death — Too Flawed to Endure, Too Ingrained to Abandon

2007 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 273-281 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert D. Truog
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Brain Death ◽  
The United States ◽  
Determination Of Death ◽  
Medical Standards ◽  
The World ◽  
The Brain ◽  
Irreversible Cessation ◽  
Made In

The concept of brain death was recently described as being “at once well settled and persistently unresolved.” Every day, in the United States and around the world, physicians diagnose patients as brain dead, and then proceed to transplant organs from these patients into others in need. Yet as well settled as this practice has become, brain death continues to be the focus of controversy, with two journals in bioethics dedicating major sections to the topic within the last two years.By way of background, the Uniform Determination of Death Act states that “[a]n individual who has sustained either: (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead. A determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.” In other words, death can be defined by either cardiorespiratory or neurological criteria, with “brain death” representing the loss of all brain function. This standard, or closely related variants, has become the accepted approach throughout the United States and in many parts of the world.

scholarly journals Evolution of the Criteria of “Brain Death”: A Critical Analysis Based on Scientific Realism and Christian Anthropology

2019 ◽  
Vol 86 (4) ◽  
pp. 297-313 ◽  
Author(s):  
Doyen Nguyen
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Cord ◽  
Brain Death ◽  
American Academy ◽  
Scientific Realism ◽  
Catholic Church ◽  
Determination Of Death ◽  
Christian Anthropology ◽  
American Academy Of Neurology ◽  
The Brain

“Brain death” (understood in the sense of “whole brain death” and not in the sense of “brainstem death”) was introduced into clinical practice in 1968 when the Harvard Ad Hoc Committee defined irreversible coma as a new criterion for death (understood in the full sense of the word). According to the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA), promulgated in 1981 by the President’s Commission (which also formally advanced the first conceptual rationale for brain death), the legal declaration of death using the brain death standard requires the irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem. The brain death standard has since evolved, however, to include significant modifications even though, on a literal reading, its clinical test criteria have remained unchanged. This article gives an account of why and how the brain death standard has been updated, leading to the currently practiced guidelines for the determination of brain death put forth by the American Academy of Neurology. According to the updated standard, the presence of certain brain or spinal cord functions does not invalidate the diagnosis of brain death. By analyzing these guidelines critically on the basis of scientific realism and Thomistic hylomorphism, this article demonstrates that the updated brain death standard contradicts both the UDDA and the tenets of sound anthropology held by the Catholic Church. Summary: This article examines the evolution of the “brain death” standard from the time of its introduction by the Harvard Committee until the current guidelines established by the American Academy of Neurology. This evolution consists mainly of a selective discarding of certain brain and spinal cord functions that are deemed insignificant. Based on the principles of scientific realism and a Thomistic substance view of human nature, this article shows that the evolved standard contradicts both the Uniform Determination of Death Act definition of brain death and the fundamental tenets of Christian anthropology as taught by the Catholic Church.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document