This Article Résumé de cet Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a scholarly reply Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Doig, C. J. Articles by Burgess, E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Doig, C. J. Articles by Burgess, E.

Brain death: resolving inconsistencies in the ethical declaration of death

[La mort cérébrale : résoudre les contradictions de la déclaration éthique de la mort]

Christopher James Doig, MD MSc^* and Ellen Burgess, MD

^* From the Department of Critical Care Medicine and the Office of Medical Bioethics;
and the Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Address correspondence to: Dr. Christopher James Doig, Rm EG23G, Foothills Medical Centre, 1403, 29th Street NW, Calgary Alberta T2N 2T9, Canada. E-mail: cdoig{at}ucalgary.ca

Purpose: The first criteria for the determination of brain death were developed in 1968 in part to address concerns that had arisen with the retrieval of organs for transplantation. Despite over 30 years of application, some professional and public doubt persists over the validity of the theoretical construct underlying this method of determining death. Our review will address historical perspectives on the development of brain death criteria, and inconsistencies in current clinical criteria.

Method: Narrative review from selected MEDLINE references and other published sources.

Principal findings: The primary construct of the determination of death is that either cardiopulmonary or neurological function irreversibly ceases. However, there is inconsistency in the neurological criteria for death between jurisdictions, between patient populations, and in the use of confirmatory tests. These inconsistencies may cause concern in the public or profession about the validity of the determination of death by neurological criteria.

Conclusions: Organ transplantation is premised on professional and public acceptance that the donor is dead. Given that the criteria for brain death or their application remain variable, we suggest that it is reasonable to consider a national consensus to address these inconsistencies. Alternatively, the standard use of confirmatory radiographic testing prior to the retrieval of organs from donors who meet clinical brain death criteria should be considered to provide conclusive evidence of permanent and irreversible loss of brain function.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				F. Arie Ethical Issues of Transplant Coordinators in Japan and the Uk Nursing Ethics, September 1, 2008; 15(5): 656 - 669. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. J. Doyle and A. Robichaud Inconsistencies in the ethical declaration of death Can J Anesth, March 1, 2004; 51(3): 280 - 280. [Full Text]

				C. Doig REPLY Can J Anesth, March 1, 2004; 51(3): 280 - 280. [Full Text]

				G. Rocker Organ and tissue donation in the intensive care unit: collaborative endeavours/Le don d'organes et de tissus a l'unite des soins intensifs : des efforts concertes Can J Anesth, August 1, 2003; 50(7): 631 - 634. [Full Text] [PDF]