TY - JOUR
T1 - What Is the Ideal Brain Criterion of Death? Nonclinical Considerations
T2 - The UDDA Revision Series
AU - Rubin, Michael A.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© American Academy of Neurology.
PY - 2023/7/11
Y1 - 2023/7/11
N2 - Although the assessment of death has long been accepted as the physician's domain, death as a concept is shared with several stakeholders, including religion, philosophy, and society as a whole. This is not to say that the physician is not part of the conceptual understanding of death, but rather that the physician cannot claim sole ownership of defining death. This claim is illustrated by the fact that the well-known Harvard criteria were written by clinicians,1 but writers of the Uniform Determination of Death Act and planned revisions will include policymakers, theologians, physicians, and attorneys.2 Furthermore, a search of the ethics literature features a robust dialog on the topic, including many pieces written by nonclinicians. Consequently, a complete understanding of the dialog around determination by neurologic criteria requires knowing both a clinician's perspective and that of a theologian, a philosopher, and a member of the general public. While the companion piece written by Nathaniel Robbins focused on the clinician's perspective of criteria for neurologic determination, this piece will examine the criterion from the lens of those who are not clinicians. I will defer the larger question if any neurologic criteria can garner consensus for death equivalency and instead focus on which neurologic criteria would be most widely supported.
AB - Although the assessment of death has long been accepted as the physician's domain, death as a concept is shared with several stakeholders, including religion, philosophy, and society as a whole. This is not to say that the physician is not part of the conceptual understanding of death, but rather that the physician cannot claim sole ownership of defining death. This claim is illustrated by the fact that the well-known Harvard criteria were written by clinicians,1 but writers of the Uniform Determination of Death Act and planned revisions will include policymakers, theologians, physicians, and attorneys.2 Furthermore, a search of the ethics literature features a robust dialog on the topic, including many pieces written by nonclinicians. Consequently, a complete understanding of the dialog around determination by neurologic criteria requires knowing both a clinician's perspective and that of a theologian, a philosopher, and a member of the general public. While the companion piece written by Nathaniel Robbins focused on the clinician's perspective of criteria for neurologic determination, this piece will examine the criterion from the lens of those who are not clinicians. I will defer the larger question if any neurologic criteria can garner consensus for death equivalency and instead focus on which neurologic criteria would be most widely supported.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85164302273&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85164302273&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1212/WNL.0000000000207360
DO - 10.1212/WNL.0000000000207360
M3 - Article
C2 - 37429721
AN - SCOPUS:85164302273
SN - 0028-3878
VL - 101
SP - 86
EP - 87
JO - Neurology
JF - Neurology
IS - 2
ER -