Literature DB >> 29386276

An interdisciplinary response to contemporary concerns about brain death determination.

Ariane Lewis1, James L Bernat2, Sandralee Blosser2, Richard J Bonnie2, Leon G Epstein2, John Hutchins2, Matthew P Kirschen2, Michael Rubin2, James A Russell2, Justin A Sattin2, Eelco F M Wijdicks2, David M Greer2.   

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.
© 2018 American Academy of Neurology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29386276     DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000005033

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neurology        ISSN: 0028-3878            Impact factor:   9.910


  15 in total

Review 1.  [Diagnosis of irreversible loss of brain function ("brain death")-what is new?]

Authors:  Uwe Walter; Stephan A Brandt
Journal:  Nervenarzt       Date:  2019-10       Impact factor: 1.214

2.  Conscientious objection by healthcare professionals to end-of-life organ donation practices: A response to Shaw et al.

Authors:  Joseph L Verheijde; Mohamed Y Rady
Journal:  J Intensive Care Soc       Date:  2018-04-18

3.  Truly Reconciling the Case of Jahi McMath.

Authors:  D Alan Shewmon
Journal:  Neurocrit Care       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 3.210

4.  Response to Machado et al. re: Jahi McMath.

Authors:  Ariane Lewis
Journal:  Neurocrit Care       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 3.210

5.  Reconciling the Case of Jahi McMath.

Authors:  Ariane Lewis
Journal:  Neurocrit Care       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 3.210

6.  Apnea Threshold in Pediatric Brain Death: A Case with Variable Results Across Serial Examinations.

Authors:  Tina Sosa; Zachary Berrens; Susan Conway; Erika L Stalets
Journal:  J Pediatr Intensive Care       Date:  2018-11-06

7.  A Qualitative Identification of Gaps in Understanding About Brain Death Among Trainees, Health Care Personnel and Families at an Academic Medical Center.

Authors:  Patrick M Chen; Jamie Nicole LaBuzetta
Journal:  Neurohospitalist       Date:  2020-05-19

8.  Practice Current: When do you order ancillary tests to determine brain death?

Authors:  Nathaniel M Robbins; James L Bernat
Journal:  Neurol Clin Pract       Date:  2018-06

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

Authors:  Joseph L Verheijde; Mohamed Y Rady; Michael Potts
Journal:  J Relig Health       Date:  2018-10

10.  Does the Uniform Determination of Death Act Need to Be Revised?

Authors:  Doyen Nguyen
Journal:  Linacre Q       Date:  2020-06-02
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.