A Framework for Revisiting Brain Death: Evaluating Awareness and Attitudes Toward the Neuroscientific and Ethical Debate Around the American Academy of Neurology Brain Death Criteria.

BACKGROUND: There remains a lack of awareness around the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) procedural criteria for brain death and the surrounding controversies, leading to significant practice variability. This survey study assessed for existing knowledge and attitude among healthcare professionals regarding procedural criteria and potential change after an educational intervention. METHODS: Healthcare professionals with increased exposure to brain injury at Mayo Clinic hospitals in Arizona and Florida were invited to complete an online survey consisting of 2 iterations of a 14-item questionnaire, taken before and after a 30-minute video educational intervention. The questionnaire gathered participants' opinion of (1) their knowledge of the AAN procedural criteria, (2) whether these criteria determine complete, irreversible cessation of brain function, and (3) on what concept of death they base the equivalence of brain death to biological death. RESULTS: Of the 928 people contacted, a total of 118 and 62 participants completed the pre-intervention and post-intervention questionnaire, respectively. The results show broad, unchanging support for the concept of brain death (86.8%) and that current criteria constitute best practice. While 64.9% agree further that the loss of consciousness and spontaneous breathing is sufficient for death, contradictorily, 37.6% believe the loss of additional integrated bodily functions such as fighting infection is necessary for death. A plurality trusts these criteria to demonstrate loss of brain function that is irreversible (67.6%) and complete (43.6%) at baseline, but there is significantly less agreement on both at post-intervention. CONCLUSION: Although there is consistent support that AAN procedural criteria are best for clinical practice, results show a tenuous belief that these criteria determine irreversible and complete loss of all brain function. Despite support for the concept of brain death first developed by the President's Council, participants demonstrate confusion over whether the loss of consciousness and spontaneous breath are truly sufficient for death.

Cytomegalovirus haemorrhagic enterocolitis associated with severe infection with COVID-19.

We present a case of haemorrhagic enterocolitis in a patient with SARS-CoV-2 who recovered from respiratory failure after support with venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. We describe clinicopathological features consistent with the systemic coinfection/reactivation of cytomegalovirus (CMV) concurrent with COVID-19 infection and the protracted clinical course of resolution of gastrointestinal inflammation after the treatment of CMV infection. Stool PCR, abdominal CT perfusion scan and histological examination of ileal and colonic tissues excluded enterocolitis secondary to other causes of infection (common viral, bacterial and protozoal gastrointestinal pathogens), macrovascularand microvascular ischaemia and classic inflammatory bowel disease, respectively. We propose possible synergistic pathophysiologic mechanisms for enterocolitis complicating severe COVID-19 infection: (1) T lymphocyte depletion and immune response dysregulation, (2) use of immunomodulators in the management of severe COVID-19 infection and (3) high concentration of ACE-2 receptors for COVID-19 virus in the gastrointestinal tract.

Integration of Routine Parental Request of Organ Donation in End-of-Life Care of Children with Neurologic Disorders in the UK: Unresolved Medical, Legal, Cultural, and Religious Challenges.

The UK adopted the opt-out system (deemed or presumed consent) in end-of-life organ donation enforceable in May 2020. Presumed consent applies to adults but not children. Transplant advocates have recommended that all children on end-of-life care should be referred for potential organ donation to increase the supply of transplantable organs in the UK. To buttress this objective, a UK survey of parents of deceased children mostly with neurologic disorders secondary to severe brain injuries recommended the integration of routine parental discussion of donation regardless of donation eligibility in end-of-life care. Donation discussions emphasize the utility and suitability of organs in dying children for transplantation to maximize consent rate. To ensure that this recommendation does not harm children and parents, contemporary medical, legal, cultural, and religious challenges to end-of-life organ donation should be disclosed in parental discussion of donation and resolved appropriately. To that effect, it is urged that: (1) practice guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of neurologic disorders secondary to severe brain injuries in children are updated and aligned with recent advances in neuroscience to eliminate potential errors from premature treatment discontinuation and/or incorrect diagnosis of death by brain(stem) criteria, (2) transparent and non-biased disclosure of all empiric information when discussing donation to ensure informed parental decision-making, and (3) a societal dialogue is conducted on the legal, cultural, and religious consequences of integration of routine donation discussion and referral in end-of-life care of children in the UK.

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.

Letter: Can Islamic Jurisprudence Justify Procurement of Transplantable Vital Organs in Brain Death?

In their article, "An International Legal Review of the Relationship between Brain Death and Organ Transplantation," in The Journal of Clinical Ethics 29, no. 1, Aramesh, Arima, Gardiner, and Shah reported on diverse international legislative approaches for justifying procurement of transplantable vital organs in brain death. They stated, "In Islamic traditions in particular, the notion of unstable life is a way to justify organ donation from brain-dead patients that we believe has not been fully described previously in the literature." This commentary queries the extent to which this concept is valid in accordance with the primary source of Islamic law, that is, the Quran.

Ethical and Legal Concerns With Nevada's Brain Death Amendments.

In early 2017, Nevada amended its Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA), in order to clarify the neurologic criteria for the determination of death. The amendments stipulate that a determination of death is a clinical decision that does not require familial consent and that the appropriate standard for determining neurologic death is the American Academy of Neurology's (AAN) guidelines. Once a physician makes such a determination of death, the Nevada amendments require the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment within twenty-four hours with limited exceptions. Neurologists have generally supported Nevada's amendments for clarifying the diagnostic standard and limiting the ability of family members to challenge it. However, it is more appropriate to view the Nevada amendments with concern. Even though the primary purpose of the UDDA is to ensure that all functions of a person's entire brain have ceased, the AAN guidelines do not accurately assess this. In addition, by characterizing the determination of death as solely a clinical decision, the Nevada legislature has improperly ignored the doctrine of informed consent, as well as the beliefs of particular faiths and cultures that reject brain death. Rather than resolving controversies regarding brain death determinations, the Nevada amendments may instead instigate numerous constitutional challenges.