Challenges to Brain Death in Revising the Uniform Determination of Death Act: The UDDA Revision Series

The Language of the UDDA is Sufficiently Precise and Pragmatic

We have a reason to value the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA). Since enactment, the UDDA has been of paramount importance to US citizens, families of comatose patients, and the health care professionals who care for them. The UDDA sets forth two standards for determining death and leaves to the medical community to elaborate criteria by which physicians can determine when those standards have been met. Neurologists and neurocritical care experts always have been center stage in this effort. Perfectly established, why change it? What ignited the recent review of the UDDA were lawsuits questioning medical (neurological) authority leading to the wording and accuracy of the UDDA being revisited. The major objections to the language of the UDDA by several groups led a committee appointed by the Uniform Law Commission to consider several substantial changes in the Act. After several years of discussion without reaching a consensus, the committee's chair suspended the effort. Upending the UDDA will lead to a legal crisis and confusion across the states. We present our main arguments against revising this statute and argue that the committee's failure to revise the UDDA should actually be seen as a necessary success.

Advancing the Scientific Basis for Determining Death in Controlled Organ Donation After Circulatory Determination of Death

In controlled organ donation after circulatory determination of death (cDCDD), accurate and timely death determination is critical, yet knowledge gaps persist. Further research to improve the science of defining and determining death by circulatory criteria is therefore warranted. In a workshop sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, experts identified research opportunities pertaining to scientific, conceptual, and ethical understandings of DCDD and associated technologies. This article identifies a research strategy to inform the biomedical definition of death, the criteria for its determination, and circulatory death determination in cDCDD. Highlighting knowledge gaps, we propose that further research is needed to inform the observation period following cessation of circulation in pediatric and neonatal populations, the temporal relationship between the cessation of brain and circulatory function after the withdrawal of life-sustaining measures in all patient populations, and the minimal pulse pressures that sustain brain blood flow, perfusion, activity, and function. Additionally, accurate predictive tools to estimate time to asystole following the withdrawal of treatment and alternative monitoring modalities to establish the cessation of circulatory, brainstem, and brain function are needed. The physiologic and conceptual implications of postmortem interventions that resume circulation in cDCDD donors likewise demand attention to inform organ recovery practices. Finally, because jurisdictionally variable definitions of death and the criteria for its determination may impede collaborative research efforts, further work is required to achieve consensus on the physiologic and conceptual rationale for defining and determining death after circulatory arrest.

An Update on Brain Death/Death by Neurologic Criteria since the World Brain Death Project

The World Brain Death Project (WBDP) is a 2020 international consensus statement that provides historical background and recommendations on brain death/death by neurologic criteria (BD/DNC) determination. It addresses 13 topics including: (1) worldwide variance in BD/DNC, (2) the science of BD/DNC, (3) the concept of BD/DNC, (4) minimum clinical criteria for BD/DNC determination, (5) beyond minimum clinical BD/DNC determination, (6) pediatric and neonatal BD/DNC determination, (7) BD/DNC determination in patients on ECMO, (8) BD/DNC determination after treatment with targeted temperature management, (9) BD/DNC documentation, (10) qualification for and education on BD/DNC determination, (11) somatic support after BD/DNC for organ donation and other special circumstances, (12) religion and BD/DNC: managing requests to forego a BD/DNC evaluation or continue somatic support after BD/DNC, and (13) BD/DNC and the law. This review summarizes the WBDP content on each of these topics and highlights relevant work published from 2020 to 2023, including both the 192 citing publications and other publications on BD/DNC. Finally, it reviews questions for future research related to BD/DNC and emphasizes the need for national efforts to ensure the minimum standards for BD/DNC determination described in the WBDP are included in national BD/DNC guidelines and due consideration is given to the recommendations about social and legal aspects of BD/DNC determination.

The Unified Brain-Based Determination of Death Conceptually Justifies Death Determination in DCDD and NRP Protocols

Organ donation after the circulatory determination of death requires the permanent cessation of circulation while organ donation after the brain determination of death requires the irreversible cessation of brain functions. The unified brain-based determination of death connects the brain and circulatory death criteria for circulatory death determination in organ donation as follows: permanent cessation of systemic circulation causes permanent cessation of brain circulation which causes permanent cessation of brain perfusion which causes permanent cessation of brain function. The relevant circulation that must cease in circulatory death determination is that to the brain. Eliminating brain circulation from the donor ECMO organ perfusion circuit in thoracoabdominal NRP protocols satisfies the unified brain-based determination of death but only if the complete cessation of brain circulation can be proved. Despite its medical and physiologic rationale, the unified brain-based determination of death remains inconsistent with the Uniform Determination of Death Act.

The Fundamental Concept of Death-Controversies and Clinical Relevance: The UDDA Revision Series

When the Uniform Law Commission (ULC) was recently in the process of revising the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA), Neurology® ran a series of debates over certain controversial issues being deliberated. Omitted was a debate over the fundamental concept underlying brain death. In his introductory article, Bernat offered reasons for this omission: "It is not directly relevant to practicing neurologists who largely accept brain death, do not question its conceptual basis, …." In this article I argue the opposite: the fundamental concept of death is highly relevant to the clinical criteria and tests used to diagnose it. Moreover, most neurologists in fact disagree with the conceptual basis articulated by Bernat. Basically, there are 3 competing concepts of death: (1) biological: cessation of the integrative unity of the organism as a whole (endorsed by Bernat and the 1981 President's Commission), (2) psychological: cessation of the person, equated with a self-conscious mind (endorsed by half of neurologists), and (3) the vital work concept proposed by the 2008 President's Council on Bioethics. The first actually corresponds to a circulatory, not a neurologic, criterion. The second corresponds to a "higher brain" criterion. The third corresponds loosely to the UK's "brainstem death" criterion. In terms of the biological concept, current diagnostic guidelines entail a high rate of false-positive declarations of death, whereas in terms of the psychological concept, the same guidelines entail a high rate of false-negative declarations. Brainstem reflexes have nothing to do with any death concept (their role is putatively to guarantee irreversibility). By shining a spotlight on the deficiencies of the UDDA through attempting to revise it, the ULC may have unwittingly opened a Pandora's box of fresh scrutiny of the concept of death underlying the neurologic criterion-particularly on the part of state legislatures with irreconcilably opposed worldviews.

Reader Response: Challenges to Brain Death in Revising the Uniform Determination of Death Act: The UDDA Revision Series

Bernat1 discussed that BD/DNC acceptance has always generated adversaries who, for conceptual or religious reasons, castoff it as human death. Therefore, to provide a conceptual framework of BD/DNC is essential to revise the UDDA.

Author Response: Challenges to Brain Death in Revising the Uniform Determination of Death Act: The UDDA Revision Series

I thank Dr. Machado for his comments about my article summarizing the recent work of the US Uniform Law Commission to revise the Uniform Determination of Death Act.1.

Potential Threats and Impediments to the Clinical Practice of Brain Death Determination: The UDDA Revision Series

The Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) revision series in Neurology® originated in response to the plan of the Uniform Law Commission to create a revised Uniform Determination of Death Act (rUDDA) to address contemporary controversies associated with brain death/death by neurologic criteria (BD/DNC) determination. This article contextualizes these, and other, controversies and reviews the extent to which they represent potential threats and impediments to the clinical practice of BD/DNC determination. It also explains the reasons that our rapidly evolving understanding of the brain's ability to recover from injury should not influence the clinical practice of BD/DNC determination. Finally, it explores the myriad ways in which the American Academy of Neurology has addressed potential threats and impediments to the clinical practice of BD/DNC determination and the implications potential changes to the UDDA may have on the future of the clinical practice of BD/DNC determination.