Commentary: False Positives in the Diagnosis of Brain Death

Increasing Solid Organ Donation: A Role for Emergency Physicians

BACKGROUND

More than 100,000 Americans with failing organs await transplantation, mostly from dead donors. Yet only a fraction of patients declared dead by neurological criteria (DNC) become organ donors.

DISCUSSION

Emergency physicians (EPs) can improve solid organ donation in the following ways: providing perimortem critical care support to potential organ donors, promptly notifying organ procurement organizations (OPOs), asking neurocritical care specialists to evaluate selected emergency department patients for death based on established neurologic criteria, participating in research to advance these developments, implementing automatic OPO notification technologies, and educating the professional and lay communities about organ donation and transplantation, including exploration of opt-out (presumed consent) organ recovery policies.

CONCLUSION

With future improvements in organ preservation and DNC assessment, EPs may become even more involved in the donation process. EPs should support and engage in efforts to promote organ donation and transplantation.

Statement in Support of Revising the Uniform Determination of Death Act and in Opposition to a Proposed Revision

Discrepancies between the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) and the adult and pediatric diagnostic guidelines for brain death (BD) (the "Guidelines") have motivated proposals to revise the UDDA. A revision proposed by Lewis, Bonnie and Pope (the RUDDA), has received particular attention, the three novelties of which would be: (1) to specify the Guidelines as the legally recognized "medical standard," (2) to exclude hypothalamic function from the category of "brain function," and (3) to authorize physicians to conduct an apnea test without consent and even over a proxy's objection. One hundred seven experts in medicine, bioethics, philosophy, and law, spanning a wide variety of perspectives, have come together in agreement that while the UDDA needs revision, the RUDDA is not the way to do it. Specifically, (1) the Guidelines have a non-negligible risk of false-positive error, (2) hypothalamic function is more relevant to the organism as a whole than any brainstem reflex, and (3) the apnea test carries a risk of precipitating BD in a non-BD patient, provides no benefit to the patient, does not reliably accomplish its intended purpose, and is not even absolutely necessary for diagnosing BD according to the internal logic of the Guidelines; it should at the very least require informed consent, as do many procedures that are much more beneficial and less risky. Finally, objections to a neurologic criterion of death are not based only on religious belief or ignorance. People have a right to not have a concept of death that experts vigorously debate imposed upon them against their judgment and conscience; any revision of the UDDA should therefore contain an opt-out clause for those who accept only a circulatory-respiratory criterion.

Hypothalamic function in patients diagnosed as brain dead and its practical consequences

Some patients who have been diagnosed as "dead by neurologic criteria" continue to exhibit certain brain functions, most commonly, neuroendocrine functions. In this chapter, we review the pathophysiology of brain death that can lead either to neuroendocrine failure or to preserved neuroendocrine functioning. We review the evidence on continued hypothalamic functioning in patients who have been declared "brain dead," examine potential mechanisms that would explain these findings, and discuss how these findings create additional confounds for brain death testing. We conclude by reviewing the evidence for the management of hypothalamic-pituitary failure in the setting of brain death and organ transplantation.

Current Practice Diagnosing Brain Death Is Not Consistent With Legal Statutes Requiring the Absence of All Brain Function

The legal standard for the determination of death by neurologic criteria in the United States is laid out in the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA), which requires the irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain. Most other nations endorse a “whole-brain” standard as well. However, current practice in the determination of death by neurologic criteria is not consistent with this legal standard, because some patients who are diagnosed as brain-dead, in fact retain some brain function, or retain the capacity for the return of some brain function. In response, the American Academy of Neurology published updated guidelines, which assert that hypothalamic function is consistent with the neurological standard enshrined in the UDDA. Others have suggested that it is an open question whether the hypothalamus and pituitary are part of “the entire brain,” as delineated in the UDDA. While we agree that determination of death practices are worthy of continued dialogue and refinement in practice that dialogue must adhere to reasonable standards of logic and scientific accuracy.

Is informed consent required for the diagnosis of brain death regardless of consent for organ donation?

In the half-century history of clinical practice of diagnosing brain death, informed consent has seldom been considered until very recently. Like many other medical diagnoses and ordinary death pronouncements, it has been taken for granted for decades that brain death is diagnosed and death is declared without consideration of the patient's advance directives or family's wishes. This essay examines the pros and cons of using informed consent before the diagnosis of brain death from an ethical point of view. As shared decision-making in clinical practice became increasingly indispensable, respect for the patients' autonomous wishes regarding how to end their lives has a significant role in deciding how death is diagnosed. Brain death, as a fully technologically controlled death, may require a different ethical framework from the old one for traditional cardiac death. With emerging and proliferating options in end-of-life care for those who suffer from catastrophic brain injury, the traditional reasoning that 'death gives no choice, hence no consent' requires another examination. Patients facing imminent brain death now have options other than undergoing the diagnostic workup for brain death, such as donation after circulatory death and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment with maximum comfort measures for death with dignity. Nevertheless, just as in the debate over opt-in versus opt-out organ donation policies, informed consent before the diagnosis of brain death faces fierce opposition from consequentialists urging the expansion of the donor pool. This essay examines these objections and provides constructive replies along with a proposal to accommodate this morally required consent.