Responses
Other responses
Jump to comment:
- Published on: 18 May 2017
- Published on: 18 May 2017
- Published on: 18 May 2017Diagnosing Death - practical vs. philosophicalShow More
Dear Editor,
Recent attacks on the medical criteria for diagnosing death have, in our opinion, reached such a degree of sophistry that the debate is in danger of becoming irrelevant to doctors and patients alike1 2 .Doctors have a job to do, to diagnose the dead.
Dying is a process, decay effects different functions and cells of the body at different rates. Doctors must decide at what moment along this pr...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared. - Published on: 18 May 2017Death and legal fictionsShow More
Shah, Truog and Miller(1) argue that current death determination practice for organ procurement purposes does not conform to a scientifically coherent understanding of death and that vital organs are being taken from still-living donors. This has been known to those who read the medical and scientific literature for some time but, as they say, the public has not been informed. Fearing that this information cannot be hidd...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared.
Other content recommended for you
- The dead donor rule: effect on the virtuous practice of medicine
- Death and organ donation: back to the future
- 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
- Death, dying and donation: organ transplantation and the diagnosis of death
- Does it matter that organ donors are not dead? Ethical and policy implications
- Do the ‘brain dead’ merely appear to be alive?
- Abandoning the dead donor rule? A national survey of public views on death and organ donation
- An analysis of heart donation after circulatory determination of death
- The haunted heart and the Holy Ghost: on retrieval, donation and death
- Decapitation and the definition of death