Article Text
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
↵ i I use this term for convenience, while agreeing with the authors’ clarification that patients who satisfy the standard diagnostic tests for brain death can retain some hypothalamic function (p 10). I believe that the persistence of some hypothalamic regulation of sodium and osmolarity is compatible with my own rationale for the validity of the neurological standard of death.
↵ ii Despite its shortcomings, I use this term for the sake of convenience to refer to what remains of a human organism (or of what used to be a human organism) after brain death.
↵ iii I make no claims regarding the sufficiency or reliability of current diagnostic tests for brain death. Particularly in light of the recent story of Jahi McMath, I am inclined to think that, at least when dealing with juvenile cases, standard diagnostic protocols may be insufficiently rigorous.
↵ iv Here I use the word ‘brain’ as shorthand for the entire central nervous system.
↵ v For more details on the differences between brain-mediated integration and the mere coordination of cells and tissues independent of the brain, see Condic,2 p 13ss.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Linked Articles
- Extended essay
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Death and organ donation: back to the future
- Organismal death, the dead-donor rule and the ethics of vital organ procurement
- Abandoning the dead donor rule? A national survey of public views on death and organ donation
- A narrative review of the empirical evidence on public attitudes on brain death and vital organ transplantation: the need for better data to inform policy
- Do the ‘brain dead’ merely appear to be alive?
- The concise argument
- What makes killing wrong?
- Does it matter that organ donors are not dead? Ethical and policy implications
- Defining death in non-heart beating organ donors
- Abandoning the Dead Donor Rule