The GLP is committed to full transparency. Download and review our just-released 2019 Annual Report.

Why defining ‘death’ is so much harder than it seems

| | October 29, 2019

Pronouncing a patient dead in a hospital seems relatively simple: palpate for lack of pulse, determine that the patient’s neurological function is absent, then disclose, out loud, his or her full name and the time of death. Except it isn’t that simple at all—in the inpatient setting.

The UDDA asserted that “an individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead. A determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.” The act aspired to add this new “total brain death” statute, in addition to the boilerplate heart-and-lung definition, to all 50 states’ laws, with mixed success.

Related article:  We may soon have a routine blood test for Alzheimer’s risk

Most states adopted some form of the UDDA, but the differences among state laws are startling. North Carolina, for instance, doesn’t have a heart-and-lung provision. Louisiana and Texas completely eschew the total-brain-death clause from their hospital definitions of death.

I defy you to find 10 doctors who can agree on what constitutes “generally accepted” or “ordinary” standards of medical practice, much less decree whether “cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem” is absolutely necessary to define death.

Read full, original post: What Is Death, Exactly?

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion, and analysis. Click the link above to read the full, original article.
News on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.
Optional. Mail on special occasions.

Send this to a friend