Whither brain death?

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.

Organ Donation Awareness among Family Members of ICU Patients

Background and Objectives: With one of the lowest donation rates in the European Union, Romania faces challenges in organ donation from brain death donors, within an opt-in system. This study aims to measure the attitudes and knowledge of ICU patient's relatives toward organ donation. Materials and Methods: A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted in the intensive care unit of the Emergency Clinical County Hospital of Oradea, Romania. A 24-item self-administered questionnaire (N = 251) was used to collect data on knowledge about organ and tissue donation and transplantation, as well as the willingness to donate. Results: A high degree of awareness and willingness for organ donation and transplantation was recorded. The main positive predictor of willingness to donate was the perception of helping others by donating their organs after brain death (β = 0.537, OR = 1.711, p < 0.05), and the main negative predictor was the idea that the whole body should be buried intact (β = -0.979, OR = 0.376, p < 0.01). Conclusions: A basic understanding of organ donation and transplantation and favorable attitudes toward organ donation were registered. Families' interviews for organ donation consent may be affected due to extreme emotional distress.

Death determination by neurologic criteria-what do families understand?

PURPOSE

Currently, there is little empirical data on family understanding about brain death and death determination. The purpose of this study was to describe family members' (FMs') understanding of brain death and the process of determining death in the context of organ donation in Canadian intensive care units (ICUs).

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative study using semistructured, in-depth interviews with FMs who were asked to make an organ donation decision on behalf of adult or pediatric patients with death determination by neurologic criteria (DNC) in Canadian ICUs.

RESULTS

From interviews with 179 FMs, six main themes emerged: 1) state of mind, 2) communication, 3) DNC may be counterintuitive, 4) preparation for the DNC clinical assessment, 5) DNC clinical assessment, and 6) time of death. Recommendations on how clinicians can help FMs to understand and accept DNC through communication at key moments were described including preparing FMs for death determination, allowing FMs to be present, and explaining the legal time of death, combined with multimodal strategies. For many FMs, understanding of DNC unfolded over time, facilitated with repeated encounters and explanation, rather than during a single meeting.

CONCLUSION

Family members' understanding of brain death and death determination represented a journey that they reported in sequential meeting with health care providers, most notably physicians. Modifiable factors to improve communication and bereavement outcomes during DNC include attention to the state of mind of the family, pacing and repeating discussions according to families' expressed understanding, and preparing and inviting families to be present for the clinical determination including apnea testing. We have provided family-generated recommendations that are pragmatic and can be easily implemented.

Rationale for revisions to the definition of death and criteria for its determination in Canada

Clarity regarding the biomedical definition of death and the criteria for its determination is critical to inform practices in clinical care, medical research, law, and organ donation. While best practices for death determination by neurologic criteria and circulatory criteria were previously outlined in Canadian medical guidelines, several issues have arisen to force their reappraisal. Ongoing scientific discovery, corresponding changes in medical practice, and legal and ethical challenges compel a comprehensive update. Accordingly, the A Brain-Based Definition of Death and Criteria for its Determination After Arrest of Neurologic or Circulatory Function in Canada project was undertaken to a develop a unified brain-based definition of death, and to establish criteria for its determination after devastating brain injury and/or circulatory arrest. Specifically, the project had three objectives: (1) to clarify that death is defined in terms of brain functions; (2) to clarify how a brain-based definition of death is articulated; and (3) to clarify the criteria for determining if the brain-based definition is met. The updated death determination guideline therefore defines death as the permanent cessation of brain function and describes corresponding circulatory and neurologic criteria to ascertain the permanent cessation of brain function. This article explores the challenges that prompted revisions to the biomedical definition of death and the criteria for its determination and outlines the rationales underpinning the project's three objectives. By clarifying that all death is defined in terms of brain function, the project seeks to align guidelines with contemporary medicolegal understandings of the biological basis of death.

Public Understandings of the Definition and Determination of Death: A Scoping Review

Background.

Advances in medicine and technology that have made it possible to support, repair, or replace failing organs challenge commonly held notions of life and death. The objective of this review is to develop a comprehensive description of the current understandings of the public regarding the meaning/definition and determination of death.

Methods.

This scoping review was conducted in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. Online databases were used to identify articles published from 2003 to 2021. Two reviewers (S.S. and K.Z.) screened the articles using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data for specific content variables, and performed descriptive examination. Complementary searches of reference lists complemented the final study selection. A search strategy using vocabulary of the respective databases was created, and criteria for the inclusion and exclusion of the articles were established.

Results.

Seven thousand four hundred twenty-eight references were identified. Sixty were retained for analysis, with 4 additional references added from complementary searches. A data extraction instrument was developed to iteratively chart the results. A qualitative approach was conducted to thematically analyze the data. Themes included public understanding/attitudes toward death and determination of death (neurological determination and cardiocirculatory determination of death), death and organ donation, public trust and legal variability, and media impacts.

Conclusions.

This review provides a current and comprehensive overview of the literature related to the general public’s understanding and attitudes toward death and death determination and serves to highlight the gaps in this topic.

Brain Death as the End of a Human Organism as a Self-moving Whole

The biophilosophic justification for the idea that "brain death" (or total brain failure) is death needs to support two claims: (1) that what dies in human death is a human organism, not merely a psychological entity distinct from it; (2) that total brain failure signifies the end of the human organism as a whole. Defenders of brain death typically assume without argument that the first claim is true and argue for the second by defending the "integrative unity" rationale. Yet the integrative unity rationale has fallen on hard times. In this article, I give reasons for why we should think of ourselves as organisms, and why the "fundamental work" rationale put forward by the 2008 President's Council is better than the integrative unity rationale, despite persistent objections to it.

Pediatric brain death certification: a narrative review

In the five decades since its inception, brain death has become an accepted medical and legal concept throughout most of the world. There was initial reluctance to apply brain death criteria to children as they are believed more likely to regain neurologic function following injury. In spite of early trepidation, criteria for pediatric brain death certification were first proposed in 1987 by a multidisciplinary committee comprised of experts in the medical and legal communities. Protocols have since been developed to standardize brain death determination, but there remains substantial variability in practice throughout the world. In addition, brain death remains a topic of considerable ethical, philosophical, and legal controversy, and is often misrepresented in the media. In the present article, we discuss the history of brain death and the guidelines for its determination. We provide an overview of past and present challenges to its concept and diagnosis from biophilosophical, ethical and legal perspectives, and highlight differences between adult and pediatric brain death determination. We conclude by anticipating future directions for brain death as related to the emergence of new technologies. It is our position that providers should endorse the criteria for brain death diagnosis in children as proposed by the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and Child Neurology Society (CNS), in order to prevent controversy and subjectivity surrounding what constitutes life versus death.

The Organism as a Whole in an Analysis of Death

Although death statutes permitting physicians to declare brain death are relatively uniform throughout the United States, academic debate persists over the equivalency of human death and brain death. Alan Shewmon showed that the formerly accepted integration rationale was conceptually incomplete by showing that brain-dead patients demonstrated a degree of integration. We provide a more complete rationale for the equivalency of human death and brain death by defending a deeper understanding of the organism as a whole (OaaW) and by using a novel strategy with shared objectives to justify death determination criteria. Our OaaW account describes different types of OaaW, defining human death as the loss of status as a human OaaW. We defend human death as similar to nonhuman death in terms of wakefulness, but also distinct in terms of the sui generis properties, particularly conscious awareness. We thereby defend the equivalency of brain death and human death using a resulting neurocentric rationale.

Brain Death and the Formation of Moral Conscience

In this article, we provide an update to Catholic ethicists and clinicians about the current status of Catholic teaching and practice regarding brain death. We aim to challenge the notion that the question has been definitively settled, despite the widespread application of this concept in medical practice including at Catholic facilities. We first summarize some of the notable arguments for and against brain death in Catholic thought as well as the available magisterial teachings on this topic. Although Catholic bishops, theologians, and ethicists have generally signaled at least tentative approval of the neurological criteria for the determination of death, we contend that no definitive magisterial teaching on brain death currently exists; therefore, Catholics are not currently bound to uphold any position on these criteria. In the second part of the article, we describe how Catholics, particularly Catholic medical practitioners, must presently inform their consciences on this issue while awaiting a more definitive magisterial resolution.

SUMMARY

Some prominent Catholic theologians and physicians have argued against the validity of brain death; however, most Catholic ethicists and physicians accept the validity of brain death as true human death. In this paper, we argue that there is no definitive magisterial teaching on brain death, meaning that Catholics are not bound to uphold any position on brain death. Catholics in general, but especially Catholic medical practitioners, should inform their consciences on this intra-Catholic debate on brain death while awaiting more definitive magisterial teaching.

Refinements in the Organism as a Whole Rationale for Brain Death

Death can be defined as the permanent cessation of the organism as a whole. Although the organism as a whole is a century-old concept, it remains better intuited than analyzed. Recent concepts in theoretical biology including hierarchies of organization, emergent functions, and mereology have informed the idea that the organism as a whole is the organism's critical emergent functions. Because the brain conducts the critical emergent functions including conscious awareness and control of respiration and circulation, the cessation of brain functions is death of the organism. A newer concept, the brain as a whole, may offer a superior criterion of death to the whole-brain criterion, because it more closely matches accepted clinical brain death tests and confirms the cessation of the organism's emergent functions. Although the concepts of organism as a whole and brain as a whole remain vague and in need of rigorous biophilosophical analysis, their future precision will be restricted by the categorical limitations intrinsic to theoretical biological models.

A Conceptual Justification for Brain Death

Among the old and new controversies over brain death, none is more fundamental than whether brain death is equivalent to the biological phenomenon of human death. Here, I defend this equivalency by offering a brief conceptual justification for this view of brain death, a subject that Andrew Huang and I recently analyzed elsewhere in greater detail. My defense of the concept of brain death has evolved since Bernard Gert, Charles Culver, and I first addressed it in 1981, a development that paralleled advances in intensive care unit treatment. The century-old concept of the organism as a whole provides the fundamental justification for the equivalency of brain death and human death. In our technological age, in which increasing numbers of components and systems of an organism can be kept alive, and for longer intervals, the permanent cessation of functioning of the organism as a whole is the phenomenon that best corresponds to its death.

Investigation of Public Perception of Brain Death Using the Internet

BACKGROUND

Brain death is a difficult concept for the public to comprehend, resulting in a reliance on alternative resources for clarity. This study aims to understand the public's perception of brain death via analysis of information on the Internet, determine the accuracy of that information, and understand how its perception affects the physician-patient relationship.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective cross-sectional study to evaluate information available to the public about brain death. The top 10 Google websites were analyzed for language complexity and accuracy in describing brain death. The top 10 YouTube videos were examined for content and the comments qualitatively analyzed for themes.

RESULTS

Inaccuracies describing brain death inconsistent with national guidelines were prevalent amongst 4 of 10 Google websites, 6 of 10 YouTube videos, and 80% of YouTube comments. On average, Google websites were written at a 12th grade level and 90% mentioned organ donation. Videos were frequently emotional (78%); 33% included negative comments toward physicians, of which 50% mentioned organ donation. All videos included clarification comments questioning the differences between brain death, death, coma, and persistent vegetative states.

CONCLUSIONS

The study revealed a significant amount of inaccurate information about brain death, affecting the public's understanding of the concept of brain death and resulting in negative emotions specifically toward physicians, and the link between brain death and organ donation. The medical community can improve understanding through consistent, simplified language, dissociating brain death from organ donation, and recognizing the emotions tied to discussions of brain death.

Ethics and Brain Death in Pediatrics: Recent Controversy and Practical Suggestions

Who decides when a child is dead? The story of Jahi McMath has brought this question into focus for pediatric intensivists, ethicists, and the American public. In this article, we address this question by arguing that medical professionals do not have an obligation to acquiesce when families insist upon postmortem therapies. To do so may harm the dignity of the child by subjecting him or her to procedures that objectify the body, damage the child's reputation, and violate his or her privacy. Applying this answer to the real world of pediatric intensive care, we suggest practices meant to preserve the dignity of the child while accepting that the family is struggling to understand the tragedy. Muddled communication or an unyielding attitude will fail to help the family understand and cope with the death of their young loved one. Clear and honest communication-in conjunction with an empathetic disposition-can improve pre- and postmortem care for both patient and family.

When Brain Death Belies Belief

The case of Jahi McMath has reignited a discussion concerning how society should define death. Despite pronouncing McMath brain dead based on the American Academy of Neurology criteria, the court ordered continued mechanical ventilation to accommodate the family's religious beliefs. Recent case law suggests that the potential for a successful challenge to the neurologic criteria of death provisions of the Uniform Determination of Death Act are greater than ever in the majority of states that have passed religious freedom legislation. As well, because standard ethical claims regarding brain death are either patently untrue or subject to legitimate dispute, those whose beliefs do not comport with the brain death standard should be able to reject it.

Public education and misinformation on brain death in mainstream media

INTRODUCTION

We sought to evaluate the caliber of education mainstream media provides the public about brain death.

METHODS

We reviewed articles published prior to July 31, 2015, on the most shared/heavily trafficked mainstream media websites of 2014 using the names of patients from two highly publicized brain death cases, "Jahi McMath" and "Marlise Muñoz."

RESULTS

We reviewed 208 unique articles. The subject was referred to as being "alive" or on "life support" in 72% (149) of the articles, 97% (144) of which also described the subject as being brain dead. A definition of brain death was provided in 4% (9) of the articles. Only 7% (14) of the articles noted that organ support should be discontinued after brain death declaration unless a family has agreed to organ donation. Reference was made to well-known cases of patients in persistent vegetative states in 16% (34) of articles and 47% (16) of these implied both patients were in the same clinical state.

CONCLUSIONS

Mainstream media provides poor education to the public on brain death. Because public understanding of brain death impacts organ and tissue donation, it is important for physicians, organ procurement organizations, and transplant coordinators to improve public education on this topic.

A philosophical assessment of TK's autopsy report: Implications for the debate over the brain death criteria

In recent years, there has been increasing evidence that the totally brain-dead patient is able to continue to live and to maintain some integrated functions, albeit with the necessary assistance of mechanical ventilation. Several years ago, the autopsy report of a totally brain-dead patient named TK who was kept on life support for nearly twenty years was published in the Journal of Child Neurology. He remains the individual kept on life support the longest after suffering total brain failure. In this essay, I argue that the clinical data described in the autopsy report demonstrate that TK's long-term survival after total brain failure supports the claim acknowledged by the President's Council on Bioethics that the brain-dead patient retains his bodily integrity. As such, he is not dead. He is still a living, though severely disabled, human organism, a human person made in the image and likeness of God.

LAY SUMMARY

Traditionally, the presence or absence of bodily integration has been used to definitively discern the presence or absence of life in the human being where decomposition of the body is the surest sign of death. The autopsy report of a patient named TK who was brain-dead for nearly twenty years demonstrates that brain-dead patients retain their bodily integrity. As such, TK and other brain-dead patients are not dead. They are living, though severely disabled, human organisms, who are human persons made in the image and likeness of God.

The Brain Dead Patient Is Still Sentient: A Further Reply to Patrick Lee and Germain Grisez

Patrick Lee and Germain Grisez have argued that the total brain dead patient is still dead because the integrated entity that remains is not even an animal, not only because he is not sentient but also, and more importantly, because he has lost the radical capacity for sentience. In this essay, written from within and as a contribution to the Catholic philosophical tradition, I respond to Lee and Grisez's argument by proposing that the brain dead patient is still sentient because an animal with an intact but severed spinal cord can still perceive and respond to external stimuli. The brain dead patient is an unconscious sentient organism.