2016
DOI: 10.1080/00243639.2016.1188472
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Brain Death and True Patient Care

Abstract: The "brain death" standard as a criterion of death is closely associated with the need for transplantable organs from heart-beating donors. Are all of these potential donors really dead, or does the documented evidence of patients destined for organ harvesting who improve, or even recover to live normal lives, call into question the premise underlying "brain death"? The aim of this paper is to re-examine the notion of "brain death," especially its clinical test-criteria, in light of a broad framework, includin… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
28
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3
3

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(28 citation statements)
references
References 92 publications
0
28
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, this leads to deeper philosophical discussions as to what counts as "living" and whether brain death criteria should be used for purposes of organ procurement from patients, let alone ECMO patients. Furthermore, there is evidence in the past decade or so that patients, who were initially declared brain dead based on neurological standards, narrowly "escaped" organ harvesting by waking up prior to or during operating room preparations [15][16][17][18][19] or had reversible "brain death" determinations [15,19,20]. Although these "narrow escape" cases are few, they should give healthcare professionals pause in relying on existing brain death criteria and neurological testing.…”
Section: Organ Preserving Ecmomentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…However, this leads to deeper philosophical discussions as to what counts as "living" and whether brain death criteria should be used for purposes of organ procurement from patients, let alone ECMO patients. Furthermore, there is evidence in the past decade or so that patients, who were initially declared brain dead based on neurological standards, narrowly "escaped" organ harvesting by waking up prior to or during operating room preparations [15][16][17][18][19] or had reversible "brain death" determinations [15,19,20]. Although these "narrow escape" cases are few, they should give healthcare professionals pause in relying on existing brain death criteria and neurological testing.…”
Section: Organ Preserving Ecmomentioning
confidence: 99%
“…With further scientific data to validate clinical tests used with any brain-injured patient, as well as those specifically on ECMO for both acute and prolonged periods of time, as well as more consistency among medical professionals in determining brain death, the threshold of uncertainty may be reduced, thus minimizing, if not eliminating, potential direct harms to patients, and subsequent emotional, social, and financial harms to their families and potential organ recipients. Nguyen [15] also adds that there have been logical and scientific inconsistencies when reasoning brain death at the bedside, as well as a general lack of understanding of the pathophysiology of the brain, where an absence of evidence of brain functions is not necessarily the equivalent to irreversible loss or death of the brain.…”
Section: Organ Preserving Ecmomentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…26. For a detailed discussion on the problems with the clinical tests for "brain death," see Nguyen (2016). 27.…”
Section: The 1968 Harvard Ad Hoc Committeementioning
confidence: 99%
“…58. For a more detailed discussion on improved outcome in comatose patients with bilateral fixed and dilated pupils, see Nguyen (2016 …”
Section: The 1968 Harvard Ad Hoc Committeementioning
confidence: 99%