Skip to main content
Log in

Response to Rady Re: Incorporation of Informed Consent and an Opt-out Option in the Revised Uniform Determination of Death Act

  • Response to Letter To The Editor
  • Published:
Neurocritical Care Aims and scope Submit manuscript

The Original Article was published on 24 August 2022

An Ethical Matters to this article was published on 19 July 2022

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

References

  1. Lewis A. Should the revised Uniform Determination of Death Act address objections to the use of neurologic criteria to declare death? Neurocrit Care. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-022-01567-3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Rady MY. Why the revised Uniform Determination of Death Act should include informed consent and opt-out option of determination of death by neurologic criteria. Neurocrit Care. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-022-01582-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Defining death: a report on the medical, legal and ethical issues in the determination of death. President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research: Washington (DC); 1981.

  4. Lewis A, Bernat JL, Blosser S, Bonnie RJ, Epstein LG, Hutchins J, et al. An interdisciplinary response to contemporary concerns about brain death determination. Neurology. 2018;90:423–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Lewis A. The Uniform Determination of Death Act is being revised. Neurocrit Care. 2022;36:335–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Greer D, Shemie S, Lewis A, Torrance S, Varelas P, Goldenberg F, et al. Determination of brain death/death by neurologic criteria: the World Brain Death Project. JAMA. 2020;324:1078–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Walter U, Eggert M, Walther U, Kreienmeyer J, Henker C, Arndt H, et al. A red flag for diagnosing brain death: decompressive craniectomy of the posterior fossa. Can J Anaesth. 2022;69:900–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Gardiner D. Additional FICMPAS guidance for decompressive craniectomy and diagnosing death using neurological criteria (DNC). Critical Eye. 2022:38–9. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-61220154. Accessed 29 Jul 2022.

  9. 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 

Download references

Funding

No funding was received for this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Ariane Lewis 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 ULC Drafting Committee on Updating the Uniform Determination of Death. She has no financial conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lewis, A. Response to Rady Re: Incorporation of Informed Consent and an Opt-out Option in the Revised Uniform Determination of Death Act. Neurocrit Care 37, 603–605 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-022-01583-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-022-01583-3

Navigation