Download PDFPDF
Depictions of ‘brain death’ in the media: medical and ethical implications
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests


  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

  • Published on:
    Censorship of media and scholarly debates and avoiding collateral damage to public confidence in organ donation
    • Michael Potts, Professor of Philosophy
    • Other Contributors:
      • Joseph L. Verheijde, David W. Evans, Mohamad Rady, and D. Alan Shewmon

    We read with great interest Daoust and Racine's contribution to the ongoing debate about brain death and its ethical and medical implications [1]. The authors argue that little is known about how the public understands the concept of death determined by neurological criteria (DNC). They set out to trace common sources of public confusion about DNC and seek to "better define the relationship between expert and lay views...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.

Other content recommended for you