No consent for brain death testing.

The overwhelming weight of legal authority in the USA and Canada holds that consent is not required for brain death testing. The situation in England and Wales is similar but different. While clinicians in England and Wales may have a prima facie duty to obtain consent, lack of consent has not barred testing. In three recent cases where consent for brain death testing was formally presented to the court, lack of consent was not determinative, and in one case the court questioned whether the clinicians were even required to seek consent from the parents of a child at all.

Limits on Parental Discretion in Medical Decision-Making: pediatric intervention principles converge.

Pediatric intervention principles help clinicians and health-care institutions determine appropriate responses when parents' medical decisions place children at risk. Several intervention principles have been proposed and defended in the pediatric ethics literature. These principles may appear to provide conflicting guidance, but much of that conflict is superficial. First, seemingly different pediatric intervention principles sometimes converge on the same guidance. Second, these principles often aim to solve different problems in pediatrics or to operate in different background conditions. The potential for convergence between intervention principles-or at least an absence of conflict between them-matters for both the theory and practice of pediatric ethics. This article builds on the recent work of a diverse group of pediatric ethicists tasked with identifying consensus guidelines for pediatric decision-making.

Traveling Across States for Prohibited Treatments: Medical Aid in Dying and Looming Battles Over Abortion.

This JGIM Perspective discusses new and emerging challenges with accessing controversial medical therapies like medical aid in dying and abortion. While some states permit these therapies for only their residents, other states prohibit these therapies for their own residents. We summarize recent developments and growing challenges for clinicians treating "medical tourism" patients from other jurisdictions.

Legal considerations for the definition of death in the 2023 Canadian Brain-Based Definition of Death Clinical Practice Guideline.

PURPOSE: The new 2023 Canadian Brain-Based Definition of Death Clinical Practice Guideline provides a new definition of death as well as clear procedures for the determination of death (i.e., when that definition is met). Since physicians must practice in accordance with existing laws, this legal analysis describes the existing legal definitions of death in Canada and considers whether the new Guideline is consistent with those definitions. It also considers how religious freedom and equality in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms might apply to the diagnosis of brain death. METHOD: We performed a legal analysis in accordance with standard procedures of legal research and analysis-including reviews of statutory law, case law, and secondary legal literature. The draft paper was discussed by the Legal-Ethical Working Subgroup and presented to the larger Guideline project team for comment. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: There are some differences between the wording of the new Guideline and existing legal definitions. To reduce confusion, these should be addressed through revising the legal definitions. In addition, future challenges to brain death based on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms can be anticipated. Facilities should consider and adopt policies that identify what types of accommodation of religious objection and what limits to accommodation are reasonable and well-justified.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Les nouvelles Lignes directrices canadiennes de pratique clinique pour la détermination du décès cérébral de 2023 fournissent une nouvelle définition du décès ainsi que des procédures claires pour la détermination du décès (c.-à-d. lorsque cette définition est respectée). Étant donné que les médecins doivent exercer conformément aux lois en vigueur, la présente analyse juridique décrit les définitions juridiques existantes du décès au Canada et vise à déterminer si les nouvelles Lignes directrices sont conformes à ces définitions. Cette analyse examine également comment la liberté de religion et l'égalité dans la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés pourraient s'appliquer au diagnostic de mort cérébrale. MéTHODE: Nous avons effectué une analyse juridique conformément aux procédures habituelles de recherche et d'analyse juridiques, y compris l'examen du droit écrit, de la jurisprudence et de la littérature juridique secondaire. L'ébauche du document a été examinée par le sous-groupe de travail juridico-éthique et présentée à l'équipe élargie du projet des Lignes directrices pour commentaires. RéSULTATS ET CONCLUSIONS: Il existe certaines différences entre le libellé des nouvelles Lignes directrices et les définitions juridiques existantes. Pour réduire la confusion, il convient de remédier à ces problèmes en révisant les définitions juridiques. De plus, les défis futurs à la mort cérébrale fondés sur la Charte des droits et libertés peuvent être anticipés. Les établissements devraient envisager et adopter des politiques qui précisent quels types d'accommodement d'objection religieuse et quelles limites d'accommodement sont raisonnables et bien justifiés.

Consent for determination of death by neurologic criteria in Canada: an analysis of legal and ethical authorities, and consensus-based working group recommendations.

This article addresses the following question: should physicians obtain consent from the patient (through an advance directive) or their surrogate decision-maker to perform the assessments, evaluations, or tests necessary to determine whether death has occurred according to neurologic criteria? While legal bodies have not yet provided a definitive answer, significant legal and ethical authority holds that clinicians are not required to obtain family consent before making a death determination by neurologic criteria. There is a near consensus among available professional guidelines, statutes, and court decisions. Moreover, prevailing practice does not require consent to test for brain death. While arguments for requiring consent have some validity, proponents cannot surmount weightier considerations against imposing a consent requirement. Nevertheless, even though clinicians and hospitals may not be legally required to obtain consent, they should still notify families about their intent to determine death by neurologic criteria and offer temporary reasonable accommodations when feasible. This article was developed with the legal/ethics working group of the project, A Brain-Based Definition of Death and Criteria for its Determination After Arrest of Circulation or Neurologic Function in Canada developed in collaboration with the Canadian Critical Care Society, Canadian Blood Services, and the Canadian Medical Association. The article is meant to provide support and context for this project and is not intended to specifically advise physicians on legal risk, which in any event is likely jurisdiction dependent because of provincial or territorial variation in the laws. The article first reviews and analyzes ethical and legal authorities. It then offers consensus-based recommendations regarding consent for determination of death by neurologic criteria in Canada.

RéSUMé: Cet article répond à la question suivante : les médecins doivent-ils obtenir le consentement du patient (au moyen d'une directive médicale anticipée) ou de son mandataire spécial pour réaliser les examens, évaluations ou tests nécessaires pour déterminer si le décès est survenu selon des critères neurologiques? Bien que les organes juridiques n'aient pas encore fourni de réponse définitive, selon la jurisprudence et l'éthique, les cliniciens ne sont pas tenus d'obtenir le consentement de la famille avant de procéder à une détermination de décès selon des critères neurologiques. Il y a un quasi-consensus dans les lignes directrices professionnelles, les lois et les décisions judiciaires disponibles. De plus, la pratique courante n'exige pas le consentement pour procéder aux examens permettant de déterminer une mort cérébrale. Bien que les arguments en faveur de l'exigence d'un consentement aient une certaine validité, leurs défenseurs ne peuvent pas surmonter des considérations plus importantes contre l'imposition d'une exigence de consentement. Néanmoins, même si les cliniciens et les hôpitaux ne sont peut-être pas légalement tenus d'obtenir le consentement, ils devraient tout de même aviser les familles de leur intention de déterminer le décès selon des critères neurologiques et offrir des aménagements raisonnables temporaires lorsque cela est possible. Cet article a été mis au point en collaboration avec le groupe de travail sur les questions légales et éthiques du projet de Définition uniformisée de la mort cérébrale et de critères fondés sur des données probantes pour sa détermination au Canada et développé avec la Société canadienne de soins intensifs, la Société canadienne du sang et l'Association médicale canadienne. Cet article vise à étayer et fournir un contexte au projet et ne vise pas à conseiller spécifiquement les médecins sur le risque juridique qui, de toute façon, varie probablement en raison des différences légales provinciales et territoriales. L'article commence par passer en revue et analyser la jurisprudence et les considérations éthiques. Il propose ensuite des recommandations consensuelles concernant le consentement pour la détermination du décès selon des critères neurologiques au Canada.

Navigating disagreement and conflict in the context of a brain-based definition of death.

In this paper, we discuss situations in which disagreement or conflict arises in the critical care setting in relation to the determination of death by neurologic criteria, including the removal of ventilation and other somatic support. Given the significance of declaring a person dead for all involved, an overarching goal is to resolve disagreement or conflict in ways that are respectful and, if possible, relationship preserving. We describe four different categories of reasons for these disagreements or conflicts: 1) grief, unexpected events, and needing time to process these events; 2) misunderstanding; 3) loss of trust; and 4) religious, spiritual, or philosophical differences. Relevant aspects of the critical care setting are also identified and discussed. We propose several strategies for navigating these situations, appreciating that these may be tailored for a given care context and that multiple strategies may be helpfully used. We recommend that health institutions develop policies that outline the process and steps involved in addressing situations where there is ongoing or escalating conflict. These policies should include input from a broad range of stakeholders, including patients and families, as part of their development and review.

RéSUMé: Dans cet article, nous discutons des situations dans lesquelles un désaccord ou un conflit survient dans le contexte des soins intensifs en ce qui concerne une détermination de décès selon des critères neurologiques, y compris le retrait de la ventilation et d'autres assistances somatiques. Compte tenu de l'importance pour toutes les personnes impliquées de déclarer une personne décédée, un objectif primordial est de résoudre les désaccords ou les conflits de manière respectueuse et, si possible, de préserver les relations. Nous décrivons quatre catégories différentes de raisons causant ces désaccords ou conflits : 1) le chagrin, des événements inattendus et le besoin de temps pour accepter ces événements; 2) les malentendus; 3) la perte de confiance; et 4) les différences religieuses, spirituelles ou philosophiques. Les aspects pertinents du milieu des soins intensifs sont également identifiés et discutés. Nous proposons plusieurs stratégies pour gérer ces situations, en étant conscients que celles-ci peuvent être adaptées à un contexte de soins donné et que plusieurs stratégies peuvent être utiles à appliquer. Nous recommandons que les établissements de santé élaborent des politiques qui décrivent le processus et les étapes nécessaires pour faire face aux situations où il y a un conflit en cours ou qui s'intensifie. Dans le cadre de leur élaboration et de leur examen, ces politiques devraient inclure les commentaires d'un large éventail d'intervenants, y compris les patients et les familles.

A brain-based definition of death and criteria for its determination after arrest of circulation or neurologic function in Canada: a 2023 clinical practice guideline.

This 2023 Clinical Practice Guideline provides the biomedical definition of death based on permanent cessation of brain function that applies to all persons, as well as recommendations for death determination by circulatory criteria for potential organ donors and death determination by neurologic criteria for all mechanically ventilated patients regardless of organ donation potential. This Guideline is endorsed by the Canadian Critical Care Society, the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Association of Critical Care Nurses, Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society, the Canadian Neurological Sciences Federation (representing the Canadian Neurological Society, Canadian Neurosurgical Society, Canadian Society of Clinical Neurophysiologists, Canadian Association of Child Neurology, Canadian Society of Neuroradiology, and Canadian Stroke Consortium), Canadian Blood Services, the Canadian Donation and Transplantation Research Program, the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians, the Nurse Practitioners Association of Canada, and the Canadian Cardiovascular Critical Care Society.

RéSUMé: Ces Lignes directrices de pratique clinique 2023 Lignes directrices de pratique clinique dicale du décès basée sur l'arrêt permanent de la fonction cérébrale qui s'applique à toute personne, ainsi que des recommandations pour la détermination du décès par des critères circulatoires pour des donneurs d'organes potentiels et des recommandations pour la détermination du décès par des critères neurologiques pour tous les patients sous ventilation mécanique, indépendamment de leur potentiel de donneur d'organes. Les présentes Lignes directrices sont approuvées par la Société canadienne de soins intensifs, l'Association médicale canadienne, l'Association canadienne des infirmiers/infirmières en soins intensifs, la Société canadienne des anesthésiologistes, la Fédération des sciences neurologiques du Canada (représentant la Société canadienne de neurologie, la Société canadienne de neurochirurgie, la Société canadienne de neurophysiologie clinique, l'Association canadienne de neurologie pédiatrique, la Société canadienne de neuroradiologie et le Consortium neurovasculaire canadien), la Société canadienne du sang, le Programme de recherche en don et transplantation du Canada, l'Association canadienne des médecins d'urgence, l'Association des infirmières et infirmiers praticiens du Canada, et la Société canadienne de soins intensifs cardiovasculaires (CANCARE) et la Société canadienne de pédiatrie.

Neurologic Diseases and Medical Aid in Dying: Aid-in-Dying Laws Create an Underclass of Patients Based on Disability.

Terminally ill patients in 10 states plus Washington, D.C. have the right to take prescribed medications to end their lives (medical aid in dying). But otherwise-eligible patients with neuromuscular disabilities (ALS and other illnesses) are excluded if they are physically unable to "self-administer" the medications without assistance. This exclusion is incompatible with disability rights laws that mandate assistance to provide equal access to health care. This contradiction between aid-in-dying laws and disability rights laws can force patients and clinicians into violating one or the other, potentially creating an underclass of patients denied medical care that is available to those with other (less physically disabling) terminal illnesses. The immediacy of this issue is demonstrated by a lawsuit in Federal court filed in August 2021, requesting assistance in self-administration for terminally ill patients with neuromuscular diseases. This paper discusses the background of this conflict, the ethical issues at the heart of the dilemma, and recommends potential remedies.

Making Medical Treatment Decisions for Unrepresented Patients in the ICU. An Official American Thoracic Society/American Geriatrics Society Policy Statement.

Background and Rationale: ICU clinicians regularly care for patients who lack capacity, an applicable advance directive, and an available surrogate decision-maker. Although there is no consensus on terminology, we refer to these patients as "unrepresented." There is considerable controversy about how to make treatment decisions for these patients, and there is significant variability in both law and clinical practice.Purpose and Objectives: This multisociety statement provides clinicians and hospital administrators with recommendations for decision-making on behalf of unrepresented patients in the critical care setting.Methods: An interprofessional, multidisciplinary expert committee developed this policy statement by using an iterative consensus process with a diverse working group representing critical care medicine, palliative care, pediatric medicine, nursing, social work, gerontology, geriatrics, patient advocacy, bioethics, philosophy, elder law, and health law.Main Results: The committee designed its policy recommendations to promote five ethical goals: 1) to protect highly vulnerable patients, 2) to demonstrate respect for persons, 3) to provide appropriate medical care, 4) to safeguard against unacceptable discrimination, and 5) to avoid undue influence of competing obligations and conflicting interests. These recommendations also are intended to strike an appropriate balance between excessive and insufficient procedural safeguards. The committee makes the following recommendations: 1) institutions should offer advance care planning to prevent patients at high risk for becoming unrepresented from meeting this definition; 2) institutions should implement strategies to determine whether seemingly unrepresented patients are actually unrepresented, including careful capacity assessments and diligent searches for potential surrogates; 3) institutions should manage decision-making for unrepresented patients using input from a diverse interprofessional, multidisciplinary committee rather than ad hoc by treating clinicians; 4) institutions should use all available information on the patient's preferences and values to guide treatment decisions; 5) institutions should manage decision-making for unrepresented patients using a fair process that comports with procedural due process; 6) institutions should employ this fair process even when state law authorizes procedures with less oversight.Conclusions: This multisociety statement provides guidance for clinicians and hospital administrators on medical decision-making for unrepresented patients in the critical care setting.

Determination of Brain Death/Death by Neurologic Criteria: The World Brain Death Project.

IMPORTANCE: There are inconsistencies in concept, criteria, practice, and documentation of brain death/death by neurologic criteria (BD/DNC) both internationally and within countries. OBJECTIVE: To formulate a consensus statement of recommendations on determination of BD/DNC based on review of the literature and expert opinion of a large multidisciplinary, international panel. PROCESS: Relevant international professional societies were recruited to develop recommendations regarding determination of BD/DNC. Literature searches of the Cochrane, Embase, and MEDLINE databases included January 1, 1992, through April 2020 identified pertinent articles for review. Because of the lack of high-quality data from randomized clinical trials or large observational studies, recommendations were formulated based on consensus of contributors and medical societies that represented relevant disciplines, including critical care, neurology, and neurosurgery. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Based on review of the literature and consensus from a large multidisciplinary, international panel, minimum clinical criteria needed to determine BD/DNC in various circumstances were developed. RECOMMENDATIONS: Prior to evaluating a patient for BD/DNC, the patient should have an established neurologic diagnosis that can lead to the complete and irreversible loss of all brain function, and conditions that may confound the clinical examination and diseases that may mimic BD/DNC should be excluded. Determination of BD/DNC can be done with a clinical examination that demonstrates coma, brainstem areflexia, and apnea. This is seen when (1) there is no evidence of arousal or awareness to maximal external stimulation, including noxious visual, auditory, and tactile stimulation; (2) pupils are fixed in a midsize or dilated position and are nonreactive to light; (3) corneal, oculocephalic, and oculovestibular reflexes are absent; (4) there is no facial movement to noxious stimulation; (5) the gag reflex is absent to bilateral posterior pharyngeal stimulation; (6) the cough reflex is absent to deep tracheal suctioning; (7) there is no brain-mediated motor response to noxious stimulation of the limbs; and (8) spontaneous respirations are not observed when apnea test targets reach pH <7.30 and Paco2 ≥60 mm Hg. If the clinical examination cannot be completed, ancillary testing may be considered with blood flow studies or electrophysiologic testing. Special consideration is needed for children, for persons receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and for those receiving therapeutic hypothermia, as well as for factors such as religious, societal, and cultural perspectives; legal requirements; and resource availability. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This report provides recommendations for the minimum clinical standards for determination of brain death/death by neurologic criteria in adults and children with clear guidance for various clinical circumstances. The recommendations have widespread international society endorsement and can serve to guide professional societies and countries in the revision or development of protocols and procedures for determination of brain death/death by neurologic criteria, leading to greater consistency within and between countries.

Medical Aid in Dying Laws: More Accessible in More States.

This Viewpoint discusses aspects of medical aid in dying laws in the US, including patient access, clinician authorization, and waiting periods.

Medical Futility and Potentially Inappropriate Treatment: Better Ethics with More Precise Definitions and Language.

The primary objective of this article is to defend the vocabulary in the Multiorganization Policy Statement. The Multiorganization Statement narrows but does not abolish the term futility. Rather, it offers a richer and more precise vocabulary that facilitates better ethical decision-making. The secondary objective of this article is to defend the continuing utility of the terms and concepts "quantitative futility" and "qualitative futility" defended by Schneiderman, Jecker, and Jonsen (2017).

Voluntarily stopping eating and drinking (VSED) to hasten death: may clinicians legally support patients to VSED?

Jox and colleagues recently compared and contrasted two leading end-of-life exit options, namely voluntarily stopping eating and drinking (VSED) and medical aid in dying (MAID). The authors argue that policymakers and medical societies should consider VSED and MAID in a uniform and consistent manner given that clinician participation in both constitutes assisted suicide. This is a very controversial topic. Herein, it is questioned whether there really is disparate consideration of VSED and MAID and whether it is justified, bearing in mind that VSED is not assisted suicide.Please see related article: http://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-017-0950-1 .

Physician Power to Declare Death by Neurologic Criteria Threatened.

BACKGROUND: Three recent lawsuits that address declaration of brain death (BD) garnered significant media attention and threaten to limit physician power to declare BD. METHODS: We discuss these cases and their consequences including: the right to refuse an apnea test, accepted medical standards for declaration of BD, and the irreversibility of BD. RESULTS: These cases warrant discussion because they threaten to: limit physicians' power to determine death; incite families to seek injunctions to continue organ support after BD; and force hospitals to dispense valuable resources to dead patients in lieu of patients with reparable illnesses or injuries. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians, philosophers, religious officials, ethicists, and lawyers must work together to address these issues and educate both the public and medical community about BD.

Legal Briefing: Unwanted Cesareans and Obstetric Violence.

A capacitated pregnant woman has a nearly unqualified right to refuse a cesarean section. Her right to say "no" takes precedence over clinicians' preferences and even over clinicians' concerns about fetal health. Leading medical societies, human rights organizations, and appellate courts have all endorsed this principle. Nevertheless, clinicians continue to limit reproductive liberty by forcing and coercing women to have unwanted cesareans. This "Legal Briefing" reviews recent court cases involving this type of obstetric violence. I have organized these court cases into the following six categories: 1. Epidemic of Unwanted Cesareans 2. Court-Ordered Cesareans 3. Physician-Coerced Cesareans 4. Physician-Ordered Cesareans 5. Cesareans for Incapacitated Patients 6. Cesareans for Patients in a Vegetative State or Who Are Brain Dead.