Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Should the Revised Uniform Determination of Death Act Address Objections to the Use of Neurologic Criteria to Declare Death?

  • Ethical Matters
  • Published:
Neurocritical Care Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Letters to the Editor to this article was published on 16 December 2022

A Response to Letter to the Editor to this article was published on 16 December 2022

A Letters to the editor to this article was published on 24 August 2022

A Response to Letter To The Editor to this article was published on 24 August 2022

Abstract

In response to concerns about the declaration of death by neurologic criteria, the Uniform Law Commission created a drafting committee to update the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) in the Fall of 2021. One of the key questions for the committee to address was the following: Should the revised UDDA address objections to the use of neurologic criteria to declare death? This article (1) provides historical background and survey results that demonstrate the need to address this question; (2) summarizes the ethical principles that support and oppose accommodation of objections to the use of neurologic criteria to declare death; (3) reviews accommodation in other areas of medicine and law; (4) discusses existing legal and hospital guidance on management of these objections; (5) examines perspectives of stakeholder medical societies and expert health care professionals, lawyers, ethicists, and philosophers on whether the revised UDDA should address these objections; (6) identifies some questions for the drafting committee to consider when deciding whether the revised UDDA should address objections to the use of neurologic criteria to declare death; and (7) summarizes the potential downstream effects of the drafting committee’s decision.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lewis A. The uniform determination of death act is being revised. Neurocrit Care. 2022;36:335–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Israel Stinson v. UC Davis Children’s Hospital; 2016. p. S-CV-0037673.

  3. McKitty v. Hayani. Ontario Superior Court of Justice; 2017. p. CV-17-4125.

  4. Choong KA, Rady MY. Re A (A Child) and the United Kingdom code of practice for the diagnosis and confirmation of death: should a secular construct of death override religious values in a pluralistic society? HEC Forum. 2018;30:71–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Shalom Ouanounou v. Humber River Hospital, Ali Ghafouri, Garret Pulle, Sanjay Manocha, Dr. David Giddons, Coroner, and Office of the Chief Coroner. Ontario Superior Court of Justice; 2017.

  6. In Re: Mirranda Grace Lawson. City of Richmond Circuit Court. 2016. p. CL16-2358.

  7. Alex Pierce v. Loma Linda University Medical Center. 2016.

  8. Defining Death: Medical, Legal and Ethical Issues in the Determination of Death. Washington D.C.; 1981.

  9. Lewis A, Adams N, Varelas P, Greer D, Caplan A. Organ support after death by neurologic criteria: results of a survey of US neurologists. Neurology. 2016;87:827–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Lewis A, Adams N, Chopra A, Kirschen M. Organ support after death by neurologic criteria in pediatric patients. Crit Care Med. 2017;45:e916–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Lewis A. A survey of multidenominational rabbis on death by neurologic criteria. Neurocrit Care. 2019;31:411–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Lewis A, Kitamura E, Padela AI. Allied Muslim healthcare professional perspectives on death by neurologic criteria. Neurocrit Care. 2020;33:347–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lewis A, Kitamura E. The intersection of neurology and religion: a survey of hospital chaplains on death by neurologic criteria. Neurocrit Care. 2021;35:322–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. van Beinum A, Healey A, Chandler J, et al. Requests for somatic support after neurologic death determination: Canadian physician experiences. Can J Anaesth Can J Anaesth. 2021;68:293–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Zheng K, Sutherland S, Hornby L, Shemie SD, Wilson L, Sarti AJ. Public understandings of the definition and determination of death: a scoping review. Transplant Direct. 2022;8:e1300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Zheng K, Sutherland S, Hornby L, Wilson L, Shemie SD, Sarti AJ. Healthcare professionals’ understandings of the definition and determination of death: a scoping review. Transplant Direct. 2022;8:e1309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Curtis JR, Burt RA. Futility in the intensive care unit: hard cases make bad law. Crit Care Med. 2010;38:1742–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Smith ML, Flamm AL. Accommodating religious beliefs in the ICU: a narrative account of a disputed death. Narrat Inqu Bioeth. 2011;1:55–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Flamm AL, Smith ML, Mayer PA. Family members’ requests to extend physiologic support after declaration of brain death: a case series analysis and proposed guidelines for clinical management. J Clin Ethics. 2014;25:222–37.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Burt RA. The medical futility debate: patient choice, physician obligation, and end-of-life care. J Palliat Med. 2002;5:249–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Liao S, Ito S. Brain death: ethical challenges to palliative care concepts of family care. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2010;40:309–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Burck R, Anderson-Shaw L, Sheldon M, Egan EA. The clinical response to brain death: a policy proposal. JONAS Healthc Law Ethics Regul. 2006;8:53–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Spike J, Greenlaw J. Ethics consultation: persistent brain death and religion: must a person believe in death to die? J Law Med Ethics. 1995;23:291–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Bosek MSD. Respecting a patient’s religious values: what does this require? JONAS Healthc Law Ethics Regul. 2008;10:100–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Prusak B. What warrants religious exemption from Covid vaccine mandates? Hast. Cent. 2021. https://www.thehastingscenter.org/what-warrants-religious-exemption-from-covid-vaccine-mandates/. Accessed 20 Nov 2021.

  26. United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163. 1965.

  27. Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872. 1990.

  28. Fulton v. the City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 593 US No. 19-123. 2021.

  29. Title 29—Labor. Subtitle B—regulations relating to labor (Continued). Chapter XIV—Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Part 1605—Guidelines on Discrimination Because of Religion. 2016.

  30. Paterick TJ, Carson GV, Allen MC, Paterick TE. Medical informed consent: general considerations for physicians. Mayo Clin Proc. 2008;83:313–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Truog RD, Tasker RC. Counterpoint: “Should informed consent be required for apnea testing in patients with suspected brain death?” Yes Chest. 2017;152:702–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. In Re: Allen Callaway. 2016. p. DG-16–08.

  33. Russell JA, Epstein LG, Greer DM, Kirschen M, Rubin MA, Lewis A. Brain death, the determination of brain death, and member guidance for brain death accommodation requests. Neurology. 2019;92:228–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Lewis A, Varelas P, Greer D. Prolonging support after brain death: when families ask for more. Neurocrit Care. 2016;24:481–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Lewis A, Greer D. POINT: should informed consent be required for apnea testing in patients with suspected brain death? No Chest. 2017;152:700–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Lewis A, Greer D. Response. Chest. 2017;152:904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Truog RD, Tasker RC. Rebuttal from Drs Truog and Tasker. Chest. 2017;152:705–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Greer D, Shemie S, Lewis A, et al. Brain death/determination of death by neurologic criteria around the world: the world brain death project. JAMA. 2020;324:1078–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Silvester W, Dawson R, Quayyum S, et al. Supplement 13: brain death/death by neurologic criteria and the law in Brain death/determination of death by neurologic criteria around the world: the world brain death project. JAMA. 2020;324:1078–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Lewis A, Cahn-Fuller K, Caplan A. Shouldn’t dead be dead? The search for a uniform definition of death. J Law, Med Ethics. 2017;45:112–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Illinois Compiled Statutes 210 ILCS 85 Hospital Licensing Act. Section 6.24—Illinois Attorney Resources—Illinois Laws. 2008.

  42. AB 2565 Assembly Bill. Epub 2008.

  43. New York State Guidelines for Determining Brain Death. Epub 2011.

  44. New Jersey Brain Death Statute. Epub 2014.

  45. Lewis A, Bonnie RJ, Pope T. It’s time to revise the Uniform Determination of Death Act. Ann Intern Med. 2020;172:143–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Lewis A, Bonnie RJ, Pope T, et al. Determination of death by neurologic criteria in the United States: the case for revising the Uniform Determination of Death Act. J Law Med Ethics. 2019;47:9–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Shewmon DA. Statement in support of revising the uniform determination of death act and in opposition to a proposed revision. J Med Philos. 2021.

  48. Lewis A, Bernat JL, Blosser S, et al. An interdisciplinary response to contemporary concerns about brain death determination. Neurology. 2018;90:423–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. An Act Relating to the Determination of Death, 2017 Nevada Acts ch. 315 (A.B. 424), effective Oct 1, 2017.

  50. Lewis A. Contemporary legal updates to the definition of brain death in Nevada. JAMA Neurol. 2017;74:1031–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Shewmon DA, Salamon N. The extraordinary case of Jahi McMath. Perspect Biol Med Perspect Biol Med. 2021;64:457–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Son R, Setta S. Frequency of use of the religious exemption in New Jersey cases of determination of brain death. BMC Med Ethics. 2018;19:76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding was received for this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Neurocritical Care, Departments of Neurology and Neurosurgery, New York University Langone Medical Center, 530 First Avenue, Skirball-7R, New York, NY, 10016, USA

    Ariane Lewis

Authors
  1. Ariane Lewis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

AL was responsible for conception, drafting, critical revision, and final approval of this manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ariane Lewis.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

Ariane Lewis is an observer on the Uniform Law Commission Drafting Committee on Updating the Uniform Determination of Death. The author has no financial conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval/Informed Consent

This article does not describe a human or animal research study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lewis, A. Should the Revised Uniform Determination of Death Act Address Objections to the Use of Neurologic Criteria to Declare Death?. Neurocrit Care 37, 377–385 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-022-01567-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-022-01567-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation