Ethical and Legal Concerns With Nevada’s Brain Death Amendments

  • Greg Yanke
  • Mohamed Y. Rady
  • Joseph L. Verheijde
Critical Perspectives
  • 8 Downloads

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Brain death Informed consent Apnoea test Constitutional law Uniform Determination of Death Act Freedom of religion 

References

  1. Ding, Z.-Y., Q. Zhang., J.-W. Wu, Z.-H. Yang, and X.-Q. Zhao. 2015. A comparison of brain death criteria between China and the United States. Chinese Medical Journal 128(21): 2896–2901.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Gorton, L.E., R. Dhar, L. Woodworth, et al. 2016. Pneumothorax as a complication of apnea testing for brain death. Neurocritical Care 25(2): 282–287.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Greer, D.M., P.N. Varelas, S. Haque, and E.F.M. Wijdicks. 2008. Variability of brain death determination guidelines in leading US neurologic institutions. Neurology 70(4): 284–289.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Greer, D.M. 2017. Letter from David M. Greer to Assemblyman Michael Sprinkle. New Haven, CT, April 1.Google Scholar
  5. Joffe, A. R., N.R. Anton, and J.P. Duff. 2010. The apnea test: Rationale, confounders, and criticism. Journal of Child Neurology 25(11): 1435–1443.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Kilcullen, J.K. 2014. “As good as dead” and is that good enough? Public attitudes towards brain death. Journal of Critical Care 29(5):872–874.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Lewis, A. 2017. Contemporary legal updates to the definition of brain death in Nevada. JAMA Neurology 74(9): 1031–1032.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Lewis, A., and D.M. Greer. 2017. Point: Should informed consent be required for apnea testing in patients with suspected brain death? No. Chest 152(4): 700–702.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Min, M.T.K. 2017. Beyond a Western bioethics in Asia and its implication on autonomy. The New Bioethics 23(2): 154–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Nevada Donor Network. 2017. Transcript of proceedings. 2017. Nevada Senate Committee on Health and Human Services, April 6.Google Scholar
  11. Nevada Senate. 2017. Nevada Senate passes AB 424 amend UDDA. Senate Floor Session, May 23, 2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ec9nUlV9FdY&t=3s. Accessed October 25, 2017.
  12. Nevada Senate Committee on Health and Human Services. 2017. Minutes of the Senate committee on health and human services, Seventy-Ninth Session. https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/79th2017/Minutes/Senate/HHS/Final/1059.pdf. Accessed October 25, 2017.
  13. President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavorial Research. 1981. Defining death: A report on the medical, legal, and ethical issues in the determination of death. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  14. Roth, C., W. Deinsberger, J. Kleffmann, and A. Ferbert. 2015. Intracranial pressure and cerebral perfusion pressure during apnoea testing for the diagnosis of brain death—An observational study. European Journal of Neurology 22(8): 1208–1214.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Saposnik, G., G. Rizzo, A. Vega, R. Sabbatiello, and J.L. Deluca. 2004. Problems associated with the apnea test in the diagnosis of brain death. Neurology India 52(3): 342–345.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Scott, J.B., M.A. Gentile, S.N. Bennett, M. Couture, and N.R. MacIntyre. 2013. Apnea testing during brain death assessment: A review of clinical practice and published literature. Respiratory Care 58(3): 532–538.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Shah, S.K. 2014. Piercing the veil: The limits of brain death as a legal fiction. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 48(2): 301–346.Google Scholar
  18. Shewmon, D.A. 2001. The brain and somatic integration: Insights into the standard biological rationale for equating “brain death” with death. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 26(5): 457–478.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Shewmon, D.A., J.L. Verheijde, and M.Y. Rady. 2011. Correspondence–Evidence-based guideline update: Determining brain death in adults: Report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology 76(3): 308.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Smith, M. 2015. Brain death: The United Kingdom perspective. Seminars in Neurology 35(2): 145–151.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Tibballs, J. 2010. A critique of the apneic oxygenation test for the diagnosis of “brain death.” Pediatric Critical Care Medicine 11(4): 475–478.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Truog, R.D., and R.C. Tasker. 2017. Counterpoint: “Should informed consent be required for apnea testing in patients with suspected brain death?” Yes. Chest 152(4): 702–704.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Verheijde, J.L., M.Y. Rady, and J.L. McGregor. 2009. Brain death, states of impaired consciousness, and physician-assisted death for end-of-life organ donation and transplantation. Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy 12(4): 409–421.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Wijdicks, E.F. 2010. The case against confirmatory tests for determining brain death in adults. Neurology 75(1): 77–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Wijdicks, E.F.M., P.N. Varelas, G.S. Gronseth, and D.M. Greer. 2010. Evidence-based guideline update: Determining brain death in adults: Report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology 74(23): 1911–1918.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. ———. 2011. Evidence-based guideline update: Determining brain death in adults: Report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology 76(3): 308–309.Google Scholar
  27. Yanke G, M.Y. Rady, and J.L. Verheijde. 2016. When brain death belies belief. Journal of Religion and Health 55(6): 2199–2213.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Pty Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Greg Yanke
    • 1
  • Mohamed Y. Rady
    • 2
  • Joseph L. Verheijde
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Historical, Philosophical, and Religious StudiesArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.Department of Critical CareMayo Clinic HospitalPhoenixUSA
  3. 3.Department of Physical Medicine & RehabilitationMayo ClinicScottsdaleUSA

Personalised recommendations