An interdisciplinary response to contemporary concerns about brain death determination

Ariane Lewis, James L. Bernat, Sandralee Blosser, Richard J. Bonnie, Leon G. Epstein, John Hutchins, Matthew P. Kirschen, Michael Rubin, James A. Russell, Justin A. Sattin, Eelco F.M. Wijdicks, David M. Greer

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

19 Scopus citations

Abstract

In response to a number of recent lawsuits related to brain death determination, the American Academy of Neurology Ethics, Law, and Humanities Committee convened a multisociety quality improvement summit in October 2016 to address, and potentially correct, aspects of brain death determination within the purview of medical practice that may have contributed to these lawsuits. This article, which has been endorsed by multiple societies that are stakeholders in brain death determination, summarizes the discussion at this summit, wherein we (1) reaffirmed the validity of determination of death by neurologic criteria and the use of the American Academy of Neurology practice guideline to determine brain death in adults; (2) discussed the development of systems to ensure that brain death determination is consistent and accurate; (3) reviewed strategies to respond to objections to determination of death by neurologic criteria; and (4) outlined goals to improve public trust in brain death determination.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)423-426
Number of pages4
JournalNeurology
Volume90
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2018

    Fingerprint

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Clinical Neurology

Cite this

Lewis, A., Bernat, J. L., Blosser, S., Bonnie, R. J., Epstein, L. G., Hutchins, J., Kirschen, M. P., Rubin, M., Russell, J. A., Sattin, J. A., Wijdicks, E. F. M., & Greer, D. M. (2018). An interdisciplinary response to contemporary concerns about brain death determination. Neurology, 90(9), 423-426. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000005033