Abstract
Background
The manner in which brain death protocols in the United States address family objection to death by neurologic criteria has not been explored.
Methods
Institutional brain death protocols from hospitals in the United States were reviewed to identify if and how the institution addressed situations in which families object to determination of brain death or discontinuation of organ support after brain death.
Results
Protocols from 331 institutions in 25 different states and the District of Columbia were reviewed. There was no mention of how to handle a family’s objections in 77.9 % (258) of the protocols. Of those that allowed for accommodation, reasons to defer brain death declaration or prolong organ support after brain death declaration included: (1) religion; (2) moral objection; (3) nonspecific social reasons; or (4) awaiting arrival of family. Recommendations to handle these situations included: (1) seek counsel; (2) maintain organ support until cardiac cessation; (3) extubate against the family’s wishes; (4) obtain a second opinion; or (5) transfer care of the patient to another practitioner or facility. Protocols differed on indications and length of time to continue organ support, code status while support was continued, and time of death.
Conclusions
The majority of protocols reviewed did not mention how to handle circumstances in which families object to determination of brain death or discontinuation of organ support after brain death. The creation of guidelines on management of these complex situations may be helpful to prevent distress to families and hospital staff.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ghoshal S, Greer DM. Why is diagnosing brain death so confusing? Curr Opin Crit Care. 2015;21:107–12.
Greer DM, Varelas PN, Haque S, Wijdicks EFM. Variability of brain death determination guidelines in leading US neurologic institutions. Neurology. 2008;70:284–9.
Lewis A. The history of brain death and how the jahi mcmath case will impact future brain dead patients. Med Law. 2015;34:497–508.
New Jersey Brain Death Statute [Internet]. 2014. http://www.njsharingnetwork.org/file/Brain-Death-Guidelines-July-27-2014sq-2.pdf.
AB 2565 Assembly Bill [Internet]. 2008. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_2551-2600/ab_2565_bill_20080927_chaptered.html.
New York State Guidelines for Determining Brain Death [Internet]. 2011. http://www.health.ny.gov/professionals/hospital_administrator/letters/2011/brain_death_guidelines.htm.
Illinois Compiled Statutes 210 ILCS 85 Hospital Licensing Act. Section 6.24—Illinois Attorney Resources—Illinois Laws [Internet]. 2008 [cited 2015 Aug 13]. http://law.onecle.com/illinois/210ilcs85/6.24.html.
Burt RA. The medical futility debate: patient choice, physician obligation, and end-of-life care. J Palliat Med. 2002;5:249–54.
Smith ML, Flamm AL. Accommodating religious beliefs in the ICU: a narrative account of a disputed death. Narrat Inq Bioeth. 2011;1:55–64.
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.
Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)–a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42:377–81.
Burkle CM, Schipper AM, Wijdicks EFM. Brain death and the courts. Neurology. 2011;76:837–41.
Haas JM. Catholic teaching regarding the legitimacy of neurological criteria for the determination of death. Natl Cathol Bioeth Q. 2011;11:279–99.
Miller AC, Ziad-Miller A, Elamin EM. Brain death and Islam: the interface of religion, culture, history, law, and modern medicine. Chest. 2014;146:1092–101.
Padela AI, Basser TA. Brain death: the challenges of translating medical science into Islamic bioethical discourse. Med Law. 2012;31:433–50.
Breitowitz RYA. The brain death controversy in jewish law [Internet]. Jewish law. 2015. http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/brain.html.
Olick RS, Braun EA, Potash J. Accommodating religious and moral objections to neurological death. J Clin Ethics. 2009;20:183–91.
Arbour R, AlGhamdi HMS, Peters L. Islam, brain death, and transplantation: culture, faith, and jurisprudence. AACN Adv Crit Care. 2012;23:381–94.
Pope TM. Brain death: legal duties to accommodate religious objections. Chest. 2015;148:e69.
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.
Bosek MSD. Respecting a patient’s religious values: what does this require? JONAS Healthc Law Ethics Regul. 2008;10:100–5.
Liao S, Ito S. Brain death: ethical challenges to palliative care concepts of family care. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2010;40:309–13.
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.
Lombard Jr. JJ. Conference on brain death—legal and medical issues particularly as effected by New Jersey law. Willingboro; 2015. p. 1–8.
Tomlinson T. Misunderstanding death on a respirator. Bioethics. 1990;4:253–64.
Curtis JR, Burt RA. Futility in the intensive care unit: hard cases make bad law. Crit Care Med. 2010;38:1742–3.
Sheehy E, Conrad SL, Brigham LE, et al. Estimating the number of potential organ donors in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:667–74.
Paris JJ, Cummings BM, Moore MP, Moore MP. “Brain death”, “dead”, and parental denial—the case of Jahi McMath. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2014;23:371–82.
Author Contributions
Ariane Lewis was responsible for conception and design, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting the manuscript, statistical analysis and final approval of the manuscript. Panayiotis Varelas was responsible for conception and design, critical revision of the manuscript, and final approval of the manuscript. David Greer was responsible for acquisition of data, critical revision of the manuscript, and final approval of the manuscript. Ariane Lewis and David Greer had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Ariane Lewis performed data analysis.
Funding
The authors received no funding support for this study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Disclosures
Ariane Lewis has no financial disclosures or conflicts of interest. Panayiotis Varelas is a member of the advisory board of Gift of Life in Michigan. David Greer is the editor-in-chief of Seminars in Neurology. This manuscript represents valid work and neither this manuscript nor one with substantially similar content has been published or is being considered for publication elsewhere.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lewis, A., Varelas, P. & Greer, D. Prolonging Support After Brain Death: When Families Ask for More. Neurocrit Care 24, 481–487 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-015-0209-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-015-0209-7