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

14 Citations (Scopus)

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

Brain Death
Nervous System
Quality Improvement
Practice Guidelines
Ethics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Clinical Neurology

Cite this

Lewis, A., Bernat, J. L., Blosser, S., Bonnie, R. J., Epstein, L. G., Hutchins, J., ... 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

An interdisciplinary response to contemporary concerns about brain death determination. / Lewis, Ariane; Bernat, James L.; Blosser, Sandralee; Bonnie, Richard J.; Epstein, Leon G.; Hutchins, John; Kirschen, Matthew P.; Rubin, Michael; Russell, James A.; Sattin, Justin A.; Wijdicks, Eelco F.M.; Greer, David M.

In: Neurology, Vol. 90, No. 9, 01.01.2018, p. 423-426.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Lewis, A, Bernat, JL, Blosser, S, Bonnie, RJ, Epstein, LG, Hutchins, J, Kirschen, MP, Rubin, M, Russell, JA, Sattin, JA, Wijdicks, EFM & Greer, DM 2018, 'An interdisciplinary response to contemporary concerns about brain death determination', Neurology, vol. 90, no. 9, pp. 423-426. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000005033
Lewis A, Bernat JL, Blosser S, Bonnie RJ, Epstein LG, Hutchins J et al. An interdisciplinary response to contemporary concerns about brain death determination. Neurology. 2018 Jan 1;90(9):423-426. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000005033
Lewis, Ariane ; Bernat, James L. ; Blosser, Sandralee ; Bonnie, Richard J. ; Epstein, Leon G. ; Hutchins, John ; Kirschen, Matthew P. ; Rubin, Michael ; Russell, James A. ; Sattin, Justin A. ; Wijdicks, Eelco F.M. ; Greer, David M. / An interdisciplinary response to contemporary concerns about brain death determination. In: Neurology. 2018 ; Vol. 90, No. 9. pp. 423-426.
@article{1c13a925a28c41ad8d583a32721b36d6,
title = "An interdisciplinary response to contemporary concerns about brain death determination",
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.",
author = "Ariane Lewis and Bernat, {James L.} and Sandralee Blosser and Bonnie, {Richard J.} and Epstein, {Leon G.} and John Hutchins and Kirschen, {Matthew P.} and Michael Rubin and Russell, {James A.} and Sattin, {Justin A.} and Wijdicks, {Eelco F.M.} and Greer, {David M.}",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1212/WNL.0000000000005033",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "90",
pages = "423--426",
journal = "Neurology",
issn = "0028-3878",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - An interdisciplinary response to contemporary concerns about brain death determination

AU - Lewis, Ariane

AU - Bernat, James L.

AU - Blosser, Sandralee

AU - Bonnie, Richard J.

AU - Epstein, Leon G.

AU - Hutchins, John

AU - Kirschen, Matthew P.

AU - Rubin, Michael

AU - Russell, James A.

AU - Sattin, Justin A.

AU - Wijdicks, Eelco F.M.

AU - Greer, David M.

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85047765700&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85047765700&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1212/WNL.0000000000005033

DO - 10.1212/WNL.0000000000005033

M3 - Article

C2 - 29386276

AN - SCOPUS:85047765700

VL - 90

SP - 423

EP - 426

JO - Neurology

JF - Neurology

SN - 0028-3878

IS - 9

ER -