When Brain Death Belies Belief

Critical care specialists, the missing link in organ procurement for transplantation

The procurement process for organ donation begins with the identification of potential organ donors in emergency or critical care units (CCU), followed by their clinical evaluation, diagnostic procedures, and therapeutic interventions, mostly conducted in CCUs. It concludes with the request for organ donation and, if accepted, the retrieval of organs. Despite most interventions occurring in detection units, there has been a neglect of the strategic role played by critical care specialists (CCS) in managing and caring for brain-dead or near-brain-death patients. Questions arise: Are they willing to undertake this responsibility? Do they fully comprehend the nature of organ procurement? Are they aware of the specific interventions required to maintain possible organ donors in optimal physiological condition? Our objective is to examine the role of CCS in organ procurement and propose ways to enhance it, ultimately aiming to increase and enhance organ donation rates.

A Framework for Revisiting Brain Death: Evaluating Awareness and Attitudes Toward the Neuroscientific and Ethical Debate Around the American Academy of Neurology Brain Death Criteria

BACKGROUND

There remains a lack of awareness around the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) procedural criteria for brain death and the surrounding controversies, leading to significant practice variability. This survey study assessed for existing knowledge and attitude among healthcare professionals regarding procedural criteria and potential change after an educational intervention.

METHODS

Healthcare professionals with increased exposure to brain injury at Mayo Clinic hospitals in Arizona and Florida were invited to complete an online survey consisting of 2 iterations of a 14-item questionnaire, taken before and after a 30-minute video educational intervention. The questionnaire gathered participants' opinion of (1) their knowledge of the AAN procedural criteria, (2) whether these criteria determine complete, irreversible cessation of brain function, and (3) on what concept of death they base the equivalence of brain death to biological death.

RESULTS

Of the 928 people contacted, a total of 118 and 62 participants completed the pre-intervention and post-intervention questionnaire, respectively. The results show broad, unchanging support for the concept of brain death (86.8%) and that current criteria constitute best practice. While 64.9% agree further that the loss of consciousness and spontaneous breathing is sufficient for death, contradictorily, 37.6% believe the loss of additional integrated bodily functions such as fighting infection is necessary for death. A plurality trusts these criteria to demonstrate loss of brain function that is irreversible (67.6%) and complete (43.6%) at baseline, but there is significantly less agreement on both at post-intervention.

CONCLUSION

Although there is consistent support that AAN procedural criteria are best for clinical practice, results show a tenuous belief that these criteria determine irreversible and complete loss of all brain function. Despite support for the concept of brain death first developed by the President's Council, participants demonstrate confusion over whether the loss of consciousness and spontaneous breath are truly sufficient for death.

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.

Neuroscience and Brain Death Controversies: The Elephant in the Room

The conception and the determination of brain death continue to raise scientific, legal, philosophical, and religious controversies. While both the President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research in 1981 and the President's Council on Bioethics in 2008 committed to a biological definition of death as the basis for the whole-brain death criteria, contemporary neuroscientific findings augment the concerns about the validity of this biological definition. Neuroscientific evidentiary findings, however, have not yet permeated discussions about brain death. These findings have critical relevance (scientifically, medically, legally, morally, and religiously) because they indicate that some core assumptions about brain death are demonstrably incorrect, while others lack sufficient evidential support. If behavioral unresponsiveness does not equate to unconsciousness, then the philosophical underpinning of the definition based on loss of capacity for consciousness as well as the criteria, and tests in brain death determination are incongruent with empirical evidence. Thus, the primary claim that brain death equates to biological death has then been de facto falsified. This conclusion has profound philosophical, religious, and legal implications that should compel respective authorities to (1) reassess the philosophical rationale for the definition of death, (2) initiate a critical reappraisal of the presumed alignment of brain death with the theological definition of death in Abrahamic faith traditions, and (3) enact new legislation ratifying religious exemption to death determination by neurologic criteria.

Ethical and Legal Concerns With Nevada's Brain Death Amendments

In early 2017, Nevada amended its Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA), in order to clarify the neurologic criteria for the determination of death. The amendments stipulate that a determination of death is a clinical decision that does not require familial consent and that the appropriate standard for determining neurologic death is the American Academy of Neurology's (AAN) guidelines. Once a physician makes such a determination of death, the Nevada amendments require the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment within twenty-four hours with limited exceptions. Neurologists have generally supported Nevada's amendments for clarifying the diagnostic standard and limiting the ability of family members to challenge it. However, it is more appropriate to view the Nevada amendments with concern. Even though the primary purpose of the UDDA is to ensure that all functions of a person's entire brain have ceased, the AAN guidelines do not accurately assess this. In addition, by characterizing the determination of death as solely a clinical decision, the Nevada legislature has improperly ignored the doctrine of informed consent, as well as the beliefs of particular faiths and cultures that reject brain death. Rather than resolving controversies regarding brain death determinations, the Nevada amendments may instead instigate numerous constitutional challenges.