A Framework for Revisiting Brain Death: Evaluating Awareness and Attitudes Toward the Neuroscientific and Ethical Debate Around the American Academy of Neurology Brain Death Criteria.

BACKGROUND: There remains a lack of awareness around the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) procedural criteria for brain death and the surrounding controversies, leading to significant practice variability. This survey study assessed for existing knowledge and attitude among healthcare professionals regarding procedural criteria and potential change after an educational intervention. METHODS: Healthcare professionals with increased exposure to brain injury at Mayo Clinic hospitals in Arizona and Florida were invited to complete an online survey consisting of 2 iterations of a 14-item questionnaire, taken before and after a 30-minute video educational intervention. The questionnaire gathered participants' opinion of (1) their knowledge of the AAN procedural criteria, (2) whether these criteria determine complete, irreversible cessation of brain function, and (3) on what concept of death they base the equivalence of brain death to biological death. RESULTS: Of the 928 people contacted, a total of 118 and 62 participants completed the pre-intervention and post-intervention questionnaire, respectively. The results show broad, unchanging support for the concept of brain death (86.8%) and that current criteria constitute best practice. While 64.9% agree further that the loss of consciousness and spontaneous breathing is sufficient for death, contradictorily, 37.6% believe the loss of additional integrated bodily functions such as fighting infection is necessary for death. A plurality trusts these criteria to demonstrate loss of brain function that is irreversible (67.6%) and complete (43.6%) at baseline, but there is significantly less agreement on both at post-intervention. CONCLUSION: Although there is consistent support that AAN procedural criteria are best for clinical practice, results show a tenuous belief that these criteria determine irreversible and complete loss of all brain function. Despite support for the concept of brain death first developed by the President's Council, participants demonstrate confusion over whether the loss of consciousness and spontaneous breath are truly sufficient for death.

Neuroscience and Brain Death Controversies: The Elephant in the Room.

The conception and the determination of brain death continue to raise scientific, legal, philosophical, and religious controversies. While both the President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research in 1981 and the President's Council on Bioethics in 2008 committed to a biological definition of death as the basis for the whole-brain death criteria, contemporary neuroscientific findings augment the concerns about the validity of this biological definition. Neuroscientific evidentiary findings, however, have not yet permeated discussions about brain death. These findings have critical relevance (scientifically, medically, legally, morally, and religiously) because they indicate that some core assumptions about brain death are demonstrably incorrect, while others lack sufficient evidential support. If behavioral unresponsiveness does not equate to unconsciousness, then the philosophical underpinning of the definition based on loss of capacity for consciousness as well as the criteria, and tests in brain death determination are incongruent with empirical evidence. Thus, the primary claim that brain death equates to biological death has then been de facto falsified. This conclusion has profound philosophical, religious, and legal implications that should compel respective authorities to (1) reassess the philosophical rationale for the definition of death, (2) initiate a critical reappraisal of the presumed alignment of brain death with the theological definition of death in Abrahamic faith traditions, and (3) enact new legislation ratifying religious exemption to death determination by neurologic criteria.

Ethical and Legal Concerns With Nevada's Brain Death Amendments.

In early 2017, Nevada amended its Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA), in order to clarify the neurologic criteria for the determination of death. The amendments stipulate that a determination of death is a clinical decision that does not require familial consent and that the appropriate standard for determining neurologic death is the American Academy of Neurology's (AAN) guidelines. Once a physician makes such a determination of death, the Nevada amendments require the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment within twenty-four hours with limited exceptions. Neurologists have generally supported Nevada's amendments for clarifying the diagnostic standard and limiting the ability of family members to challenge it. However, it is more appropriate to view the Nevada amendments with concern. Even though the primary purpose of the UDDA is to ensure that all functions of a person's entire brain have ceased, the AAN guidelines do not accurately assess this. In addition, by characterizing the determination of death as solely a clinical decision, the Nevada legislature has improperly ignored the doctrine of informed consent, as well as the beliefs of particular faiths and cultures that reject brain death. Rather than resolving controversies regarding brain death determinations, the Nevada amendments may instead instigate numerous constitutional challenges.

Reliability and a correlational analysis of the 6MWT, ten-meter walk test, thirty second sit to stand, and the linear analog scale of function in patients with head and neck cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to establish the test-retest reliability of and relationships between various measures of physical function in a cohort of individuals in the early treatment stages for head and neck cancer (HNC). METHODS: The Six-Minute Walk Test (6MWT), 10-Meter Walk Test (10MWT), 30-Second Sit to Stand (30STS), and Linear Analog Scale of Function (LASF) were administered to 42 participants with a diagnosis of HNC. Test-retest reliability and correlations between the measures are reported. RESULTS: The 6MWT, 10MWT, 30STS, and LASF demonstrate excellent test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.901-0.960). The 6MWT exhibits a moderate to good relationship with the 10MWT (r = 0.684, p < 0.001), whereas the relationship between the 30STS and the 6MWT (r = 0.407, p = 0.007) and 10MWT (r = 0.322, p = 0.038) is fair. The LASF does not correlate significantly with the 6MWT, 10MWT, or 30STS. CONCLUSIONS: The 6MWT, 10MWT, 30STS, and LASF are reliable measurement instruments for patients treated for HNC. The 6MWT, 10MWT, and 30STS are significantly correlated suggesting they may measure subconstructs of physical function. The LASF does not correlate significantly with the 6MWT, 10MWT and 30STS in this sample.

Legislative Enforcement of Nonconsensual Determination of Neurological (Brain) Death in Muslim Patients: A Violation of Religious Rights.

Death is defined in the Quran with a single criterion of irreversible separation of the ruh (soul) from the body. The Quran is a revelation from God to man, and the primary source of Islamic knowledge. The secular concept of death by neurological criteria, or brain death, is at odds with the Quranic definition of death. The validity of this secular concept has been contested scientifically and philosophically. To legitimize brain death for the purpose of organ donation and transplantation in Muslim communities, Chamsi-Pasha and Albar (concurring with the US President's Council on Bioethics) have argued that irreversible loss of capacity for consciousness and breathing (apneic coma) in brain death defines true death in accordance with Islamic sources. They have postulated that the absence of nafs (personhood) and nafas (breath) in apneic coma constitutes true death because of departure of the soul (ruh) from the body. They have also asserted that general anesthesia is routine in brain death before surgical procurement. Their argument is open to criticism because: (1) the ruh is described as the essence of life, whereas the nafs and nafas are merely human attributes; (2) unlike true death, the ruh is still present even with absent nafs and nafas in apneic coma; and (3) the routine use of general anesthesia indicates the potential harm to brain-dead donors from surgical procurement. Postmortem general anesthesia is not required for autopsy. Therefore, the conclusion must be that legislative enforcement of nonconsensual determination of neurological (brain) death and termination of life-support and medical treatment violates the religious rights of observant Muslims.

Judicial oversight of life-ending withdrawal of assisted nutrition and hydration in disorders of consciousness in the United Kingdom: A matter of life and death.

Mr Justice Baker delivered the Oxford Shrieval Lecture 'A Matter of Life and Death' on 11 October 2016. The lecture created public controversies about who can authorise withdrawal of assisted nutrition and hydration (ANH) in disorders of consciousness (DOC). The law requires court permission in 'best interests' decisions before ANH withdrawal only in permanent vegetative state and minimally conscious state. Some clinicians favour abandoning the need for court approval on the basis that clinicians are already empowered to withdraw ANH in other common conditions of DOC (e.g. coma, neurological disorders, etc.) based on their best interests assessment without court oversight. We set out a rationale in support of court oversight of best interests decisions in ANH withdrawal intended to end life in any person with DOC (who will lack relevant decision-making capacity). This ensures the safety of the general public and the protection of vulnerable disabled persons in society.

In re guardianship of Hailu: The Nevada Supreme Court casts doubt on the standard for brain death diagnosis.

In the recent court case of In Re Guardianship of Hailu, the Nevada Supreme Court cast doubt on the acceptability of the American Academy of Neurology's guidelines as a medical standard for determining brain death. The Uniform Determination of Death Act, which has been adopted in every state, requires that brain death diagnoses be made in accordance with accepted medical standards. The Court expressed concern that the guidelines fail to ensure that there is an irreversible cessation of all functions of a person's entire brain, which is a component of the Act's definition of death. Although the Nevada Supreme Court remanded the case to the District Court to hear more expert evidence concerning whether the guidelines constitute "accepted medical standards," the patient who was the subject of the case met the criteria for cardiopulmonary death several weeks prior to the hearing and the legal case became moot. As a result, the issue of whether the American Academy of Neurology guidelines, or some other criteria for determining brain death, are accepted medical standards for determining whether all brain function has ceased remains unresolved.

When Brain Death Belies Belief.

The case of Jahi McMath has reignited a discussion concerning how society should define death. Despite pronouncing McMath brain dead based on the American Academy of Neurology criteria, the court ordered continued mechanical ventilation to accommodate the family's religious beliefs. Recent case law suggests that the potential for a successful challenge to the neurologic criteria of death provisions of the Uniform Determination of Death Act are greater than ever in the majority of states that have passed religious freedom legislation. As well, because standard ethical claims regarding brain death are either patently untrue or subject to legitimate dispute, those whose beliefs do not comport with the brain death standard should be able to reject it.

Neuroscience and awareness in the dying human brain: Implications for organ donation practices.

Consciousness has 2 components: wakefulness (arousal) and awareness (perception of the self and the external environment). Functional neuroimaging has identified 2 distinctive functional networks that mediate external awareness of the surrounding environment and internal awareness of the self. Recent studies suggest that awareness is not always associated with wakefulness. There is little clinical research that has specifically focused on determining awareness in the dying phase, after the cessation of systemic circulation. Pana et al (J Crit Care, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrc.2016.04.001) concluded from a retrospective analysis of published human and animal studies that the cessation of clinical brain function and spontaneous electroencephalography activity occurred within 30 seconds of circulatory arrest. They inferred from this that a 5-minute period of cessation of circulation constitutes a valid indicator that awareness has ceased. This aligns with the 5-minute no-touch time after the loss of arterial pulse, the current circulatory standard of death determination in non-heart-beating organ donation. We argue that the capacity for awareness may not be irreversibly lost after a relatively brief period of cessation of systemic circulation, and outline empirical data in support of the claim that awareness without wakefulness may be present. Obviously, if correct, this will have practical and ethical implications on organ donation practices.