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

The conception and the determination of brain death continue to raise scientific, legal, philosophical, and religious controversies. While both the President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research in 1981 and the President's Council on Bioethics in 2008 committed to a biological definition of death as the basis for the whole-brain death criteria, contemporary neuroscientific findings augment the concerns about the validity of this biological definition. Neuroscientific evidentiary findings, however, have not yet permeated discussions about brain death. These findings have critical relevance (scientifically, medically, legally, morally, and religiously) because they indicate that some core assumptions about brain death are demonstrably incorrect, while others lack sufficient evidential support. If behavioral unresponsiveness does not equate to unconsciousness, then the philosophical underpinning of the definition based on loss of capacity for consciousness as well as the criteria, and tests in brain death determination are incongruent with empirical evidence. Thus, the primary claim that brain death equates to biological death has then been de facto falsified. This conclusion has profound philosophical, religious, and legal implications that should compel respective authorities to (1) reassess the philosophical rationale for the definition of death, (2) initiate a critical reappraisal of the presumed alignment of brain death with the theological definition of death in Abrahamic faith traditions, and (3) enact new legislation ratifying religious exemption to death determination by neurologic criteria.

Safety and efficacy of combined immunosuppression and orbital radiotherapy in thyroid-related restrictive myopathy: two-center experience.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of oral steroids when combined with long-term oral azathioprine (AZA) and orbital radiotherapy in patients with active thyroid-related restrictive myopathy. METHODS: A total of 88 patients from adnexal outpatient clinics of Bristol Eye Hospital, UK, and 2nd Department of Ophthalmology at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece, were enrolled in a retrospective, twin-center study. All patients were diagnosed with active thyroid eye disease and concomitant restrictive myopathy. Treatment included oral AZA, low-dose steroids, and orbital radiotherapy (20 Gy). Clinical activity scores as well as orthoptic assessments were consistently evaluated. Clinical activity scores, improved levels of diplopia, and single muscle excursions were considered major criteria for treatment success. RESULTS: Clinical success was achieved in 54 (61.4%), 57 (64.8%), and 61 (69.3%) patients at 3-, 6-, and 12-month time points, respectively, after the initiation of the combined treatment. At 18 months following initiation of treatment, the percentage of treatment success reached 73.9% (n = 65). Nine patients developed AZA-related side effects. In 4 patients the drug had to be discontinued. CONCLUSIONS: Combined immunosuppression with orbital radiotherapy appears to reduce morbidity in patients with marked restrictive myopathy by improving major motility parameters such as diplopia and duction amplitude.

The ethics of limiting informed debate: censorship of select medical publications in the interest of organ transplantation.

Recently, several articles in the scholarly literature on medical ethics proclaim the need for "responsible scholarship" in the debate over the proper criteria for death, in which "responsible scholarship" is defined in terms of support for current neurological criteria for death. In a recent article, James M. DuBois is concerned that academic critiques of current death criteria create unnecessary doubt about the moral acceptability of organ donation, which may affect the public's willingness to donate. Thus he calls for a closing of the debate on current death criteria and for journal editors to publish only critiques that "substantially engage and advance the debate." We argue that such positions as DuBois' are a threat to responsible scholarship in medical ethics, especially scholarship that opposes popular stances, because it erodes academic freedom and the necessity of debate on an issue that is literally a matter of life and death, no matter what side a person defends.

Infant heart transplantation after cardiac death: ethical and legal problems.

The donation of organs after cardiac death in infants is not morally justified and should not be continued.

Normative consent and presumed consent for organ donation: a critique.

Ben Saunders claims that actual consent is not necessary for organ donation due to 'normative consent', a concept he borrows from David Estlund. Combining normative consent with Peter Singer's 'greater moral evil principle', Saunders argues that it is immoral for an individual to refuse consent to donate his or her organs. If a presumed consent policy were thus adopted, it would be morally legitimate to remove organs from individuals whose wishes concerning donation are not known. This paper disputes Saunders' arguments. First, if death caused by the absence of organ transplant is the operational premise, then, there is nothing of comparable moral precedence under which a person is not obligated to donate. Saunders' use of Singer's principle produces a duty to donate in almost all circumstances. However, this premise is based on a flawed interpretation of cause and effect between organ availability and death. Second, given growing moral and scientific agreement that the organ donors in heart-beating and non-heart-beating procurement protocols are not dead when their organs are surgically removed, it is not at all clear that people have a duty to consent to their lives being taken for their organs. Third, Saunders' claim that there can be good reasons for refusing consent clashes with his claim that there is a moral obligation for everyone to donate their organs. Saunders' argument is more consistent with a conclusion of 'mandatory consent'. Finally, it is argued that Saunders' policy, if put into place, would be totalitarian in scope and would therefore be inconsistent with the freedom required for a democratic society.

Integration strategies for using virtual patients in clinical clerkships.

PURPOSE: To explore students' perceptions of virtual patient use in the clinical clerkship and develop a framework to evaluate effects of different integration strategies on students' satisfaction and perceptions of learning effectiveness with this innovation. METHOD: A prospective, multiinstitutional study was conducted at six schools' pediatric clerkships to assess the impact of integrating Web-based virtual patient cases on students' perceptions of their learning during 2004-2005 and 2005-2006. Integration strategies were designed to meet the needs of each school, and integration was scored for components of virtual patient use and elimination of other teaching methodologies. A student survey was developed, validated, and administered at the end of the clerkship to 611 students. Data were analyzed using confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling. RESULTS: A total of 545 students (89%) completed the survey. Overall student satisfaction with the virtual patients was high; students reported that they were more effective than traditional methods. The structural model demonstrated that elimination of other teaching methodologies was directly associated with perceived effectiveness of the integration strategies. A higher use score had a significant negative effect on perceived integration, but a positive effect on perceived knowledge and skills gain. Students' positive perceptions of integration directly affected their satisfaction and perception of the effectiveness of their learning. CONCLUSIONS: Integration strategies balancing the use of virtual patients with elimination of some other requirements were significantly associated with students' satisfaction and their perceptions of improved knowledge and skills.

Parosteal osteosarcoma of the orbit.

A 60-year-old woman was referred to Bristol Eye Hospital because of a progressive, painless, right proptosis. CT revealed a well-defined, hyperdense lesion adjacent to the lateral orbital wall. A marginal excision was performed. The mass was stony-hard, lobulated, and encapsulated. Histopathologic findings were consistent with a low-grade parosteal osteosarcoma. Parosteal osteosarcoma is a rare osteogenic tumor that usually affects the long bones. It represents a malignant, though well differentiated, tumor that has a relatively good prognosis after a wide excision. However, local recurrences are not rare and have been associated with dedifferentiation. The latter affects the prognosis adversely and, thus, regular follow-ups are strongly suggested after the initial tumor excision. In the present case, no further treatment was administered and the patient was reported disease free 26 months after surgery.

Truthfulness in transplantation: non-heart-beating organ donation.

The current practice of organ transplantation has been criticized on several fronts. The philosophical and scientific foundations for brain death criteria have been crumbling. In addition, donation after cardiac death, or non-heartbeating-organ donation (NHBD) has been attacked on grounds that it mistreats the dying patient and uses that patient only as a means to an end for someone else's benefit.Verheijde, Rady, and McGregor attack the deception involved in NHBD, arguing that the donors are not dead and that potential donors and their families should be told that is the case. Thus, they propose abandoning the dead donor rule and allowing NHBD with strict rules concerning adequate informed consent. Such honesty about NHBD should be welcomed.However, NHBD violates a fundamental end of medicine, nonmaleficience, "do no harm." Physicians should not be harming or killing patients, even if it is for the benefit of others. Thus, although Verheijde and his colleages should be congratulated for calling for truthfulness about NHBD, they do not go far enough and call for an elimination of such an unethical procedure from the practice of medicine.