Brain death- Too flawed to endure, too ingrained to abandon

Department of Medical Ethics, Anesthesia, and Pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
The Journal of Law Medicine &amp Ethics (Impact Factor: 0.94). 02/2007; 35(2):273-81. DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2007.00136.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The concept of brain death has become deeply ingrained in our health care system. It serves as the justification for the removal of vital organs like the heart and liver from patients who still have circulation and respiration while these organs maintain viability. On close examination, however, the concept is seen as incoherent and counterintuitive to our understandings of death. In order to abandon the concept of brain death and yet retain our practices in organ transplantation, we need to either change the definition of death or no longer maintain a commitment to the dead donor rule, which is an implicit prohibition against removing vital organs from individuals before they are declared dead. After exploring these two options, the author argues that while new definitions of death are problematic, alternatives to the dead donor rule are both ethically justifiable and potentially palatable to the public. Even so, the author concludes that neither of these approaches is likely to be adopted and that resolution will most probably come when technological advances in immunology simply make the concept of brain death obsolete.

1 Bookmark
  • Pediatric Neurology 10/2014; 51(4). DOI:10.1016/j.pediatrneurol.2014.06.006 · 1.50 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We seek to change the conversation about brain death by highlighting the distinction between brain death as a biological concept versus brain death as a legal status. The fact that brain death does not cohere with any biologically plausible definition of death has been known for decades. Nevertheless, this fact has not threatened the acceptance of brain death as a legal status that permits individuals to be treated as if they are dead. The similarities between "legally dead" and "legally blind" demonstrate how we may legitimately choose bright-line legal definitions that do not cohere with biological reality. Not only does this distinction bring conceptual coherence to the conversation about brain death, but it has practical implications as well. Once brain death is recognized as a social construction not grounded in biological reality, we create the possibility of changing the social construction in ways that may better serve both organ donors and recipients alike.
    The American Journal of Bioethics 08/2014; 14(8):9-14. DOI:10.1080/15265161.2014.925154 · 2.45 Impact Factor
  • The American Journal of Bioethics 08/2014; 14(8):31-33. DOI:10.1080/15265161.2014.925158 · 2.45 Impact Factor