Death Determination and Clinicians' Epistemic Authority

Inconsistency between the Circulatory and the Brain Criteria of Death in the Uniform Determination of Death Act

The Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) provides that "an 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." We show that the UDDA contains two conflicting interpretations of the phrase "cessation of functions." By one interpretation, what matters for the determination of death is the cessation of spontaneous functions only, regardless of their generation by artificial means. By the other, what matters is the cessation of both spontaneous and artificially supported functions. Because each UDDA criterion uses a different interpretation, the law is conceptually inconsistent. A single consistent interpretation would lead to the conclusion that conscious individuals whose respiratory and circulatory functions are artificially supported are actually dead, or that individuals whose brain is entirely and irreversibly destroyed may be alive. We explore solutions to mitigate the inconsistency.

Death pluralism: a proposal

The debate over the determination of death has been raging for more than fifty years. Since then, objections against the diagnosis of brain death from family members of those diagnosed as dead-have been increasing and are causing some countries to take novel steps to accommodate people's beliefs and preferences in the determination of death. This, coupled with criticism by some academics of the brain death criterion, raises some questions about the issues surrounding the determination of death. In this paper, we discuss some of the main approaches to death determination that have been theoretically proposed or currently put into practice and propose a new approach to death determination called "weak pluralism" as a reasonable ethical and political alternative to respect diversity in death determination.

Consent for determination of death by neurologic criteria in Canada: an analysis of legal and ethical authorities, and consensus-based working group recommendations

This article addresses the following question: should physicians obtain consent from the patient (through an advance directive) or their surrogate decision-maker to perform the assessments, evaluations, or tests necessary to determine whether death has occurred according to neurologic criteria? While legal bodies have not yet provided a definitive answer, significant legal and ethical authority holds that clinicians are not required to obtain family consent before making a death determination by neurologic criteria. There is a near consensus among available professional guidelines, statutes, and court decisions. Moreover, prevailing practice does not require consent to test for brain death. While arguments for requiring consent have some validity, proponents cannot surmount weightier considerations against imposing a consent requirement. Nevertheless, even though clinicians and hospitals may not be legally required to obtain consent, they should still notify families about their intent to determine death by neurologic criteria and offer temporary reasonable accommodations when feasible. This article was developed with the legal/ethics working group of the project, A Brain-Based Definition of Death and Criteria for its Determination After Arrest of Circulation or Neurologic Function in Canada developed in collaboration with the Canadian Critical Care Society, Canadian Blood Services, and the Canadian Medical Association. The article is meant to provide support and context for this project and is not intended to specifically advise physicians on legal risk, which in any event is likely jurisdiction dependent because of provincial or territorial variation in the laws. The article first reviews and analyzes ethical and legal authorities. It then offers consensus-based recommendations regarding consent for determination of death by neurologic criteria in Canada.

The Shifting Landscape of Death by Neurologic Criteria in Pediatrics: Current Controversies and Persistent Questions

Since the concept of death by neurologic criteria (DNC) or "brain death" was articulated by the Harvard Ad Hoc Committee in 1968, efforts to establish and uphold DNC as equivalent to biologic death have been supported through federal and state legislation, professional guidelines, and hospital policies. Despite these endeavors, DNC remains controversial among bioethics scholars and clinicians and is not universally accepted by patient families and the public. In this focused review, we outline the current points of contention surrounding the diagnosis of DNC in pediatric patients. These include physiologic, legal, and philosophical inconsistencies in the definition of DNC, controversy regarding the components of the clinical exam, variability in clinical practice, and ethical concerns regarding justice and role of informed consent. By better understanding these controversies, clinicians may serve families grappling with the diagnosis of DNC more effectively, compassionately, and equitably.

Attitudes of Polish Doctors towards Brain Death

Brain death has been one of the most controversial issues in the medical and bioethical debate globally for more than fifty years. There is no unanimous acceptance of the understanding of brain death, and a single set of neurological criteria for the determination of human death that is accepted worldwide has yet to be established. Physicians from different specialisations understand brain death differently. Therefore, research is needed to understand and typologically classify their points of views as regards brain death. In Poland, this research is particularly important, as the views of anaesthesiologists, neurologists and transplantologists, who fully accept and support brain death as being synonymous with biological human death, have dominated the scholarly debate on this issue. This study presents the opinions of Polish physicians with various medical specialisations in relation to brain death. Free-form interviews with 28 doctors were conducted. Participants expressed their personal views on brain death, while exhibiting at the same time various emotions. We discuss our findings in relation to the existing framework of knowledge and debate concerning brain death and the Polish legal regulation in force when the interviews were carried out. Although participants had different beliefs with regard to brain death, the research team managed to classify their statements and opinions into five attitudes, taking into account what for them were the most important, namely: the escapist-protective attitude, the scientistic-medical attitude, the accepting-critical attitude, the ignorant-agnostic attitude, and the ambiguous attitude.

Brain death debates: from bioethics to epistemology

50 years after its introduction, brain death remains controversial among scholars. The debates focus on one question: is brain death a good criterion for determining death? This question has been answered from various perspectives: medical, metaphysical, ethical, and legal or political. Most authors either defend the criterion as it is, propose some minor or major revisions, or advocate abandoning it and finding better solutions to the problems that brain death was intended to solve when it was introduced. In short, debates about brain death have been characterized by partisanship, for or against. Here I plead for a non-partisan approach that has been overlooked in the literature: the epistemological or philosophy of science approach. Some scholars claim that human death is a matter of fact, a biological phenomenon whose occurrence can be determined empirically, based on science. We should take this claim seriously, whether we agree with it or not. The question is: how do we know that human death is a scientific matter of fact? Taking the epistemological approach means, among other things, examining how the determination of human death became an object of scientific inquiry, exploring the nature of the brain death criterion itself, and analysing the meaning of its core concepts such as "irreversibility" and "functions".

Brain death debates: from bioethics to philosophy of science

50 years after its introduction, brain death remains controversial among scholars. The debates focus on one question: is brain death a good criterion for determining death? This question has been answered from various perspectives: medical, metaphysical, ethical, and legal or political. Most authors either defend the criterion as it is, propose some minor or major revisions, or advocate abandoning it and finding better solutions to the problems that brain death was intended to solve when it was introduced. Here I plead for a different approach that has been overlooked in the literature: the philosophy of science approach. Some scholars claim that human death is a matter of fact, a biological phenomenon whose occurrence can be determined empirically, based on science. We should take this claim seriously, whether we agree with it or not. The question is: how do we know that human death is a scientific matter of fact? Taking the philosophy of science approach means, among other things, examining how the determination of human death became an object of scientific inquiry, exploring the nature of the brain death criterion itself, and analysing the meaning of its core concepts such as "irreversibility" and "functions".