Skip to main content

Preserved Hypothalamic Function Is Not Consistent with the Whole-Brain Criterion for Death

Part of the Advances in Neuroethics book series (AIN)

Abstract

The whole-brain criterion for death requires the absence of all functions of the entire brain. It follows logically that the preservation of any function of any part of the brain is not consistent with the whole-brain criterion for death. The hypothalamus is a part of the brain and has been shown to continue functioning in up to 50% of patients declared dead by neurologic criteria. Therefore, up to 50% of patients declared dead under the whole-brain criterion for death are false-positive misdiagnoses. Numerous responses have been offered to explain why preserved hypothalamic function is consistent with the whole-brain criterion for death. All these responses fail.

Keywords

  • Brain death
  • Hypothalamus
  • Diabetes insipidus
  • False positive
  • Determination of death by neurologic criteria

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Biobehavioral Research. Defining death: a report on the medical, legal and ethical issues in the determination of death. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Academy of Medical Royal Colleges. A Code of Practice for the Diagnosis and Confirmation of Death; 2008. http://aomrc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Code_Practice_Confirmation_Diagnosis_Death_1008-4.pdf.

  3. Green MB, Wikler D. Brain death and personal identity. Philos Public Aff. 1980;9(2):105–33.

    Google Scholar 

  4. McMahan J. The ethics of killing: problems at the margins of life. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2002.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  5. Lizza JP. Persons, humanity, and the definition of death. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bernat JL, Dalle Ave AL. Aligning the criterion and tests for brain death. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2019;28(4):635–41.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  7. Dalle Ave AL, Bernat JL. Inconsistencies between the criterion and tests for brain death. J Intensive Care Med. 2020;35(8):772–80.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  8. Shewmon DA. Statement in support of revising the Uniform Determination of Death Act and in opposition to a proposed revision. J Med Philos. 2021; online ahead of print. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jhab014.

  9. Greer DM, Shemie SD, Lewis A, et al. Determination of brain death/death by neurologic criteria. The World Brain Death Project. JAMA. 2020;324(11):1078–97.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Wijdicks EF, Varelas PN, Gronseth GS, Greer DM. Evidence-based guideline update: determining brain death in adults: report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology. 2010;74(23):1911–8.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  11. Shemie SD, Hornby L, Baker A, et al. International guideline development for the determination of death. Intensive Care Med. 2014;40(6):788–97.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  12. Swaab DF, Buijs RM, Kreier F, Lucassen PJ, Salehi A. Preface. In: Swaab D, Buijs RM, Kreier F, Lucassen PJ, Salehi A, editors. Handbook of clinical neurology vol. 182 (3rd series). The human hypothalamus: neuropsychiatric disorders. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2021.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Blumenfeld H. Neuroanatomy through clinical cases. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, Inc.; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Nair-Collins M, Joffe AR. Frequent preservation of neurologic function in brain death and brainstem death entails false-positive misdiagnosis and cerebral perfusion. AJOB Neurosci. 2021. Online ahead of print. https://doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2021.1973148.

  15. Nair-Collins M, Joffe AR. Hypothalamic function in patients diagnosed as brain dead and its practical consequences. In: Swaab D, Buijs RM, Kreier F, Lucassen PJ, Salehi A, editors. Handbook of clinical neurology vol. 182 (3rd series). The human hypothalamus: neuropsychiatric disorders. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2021.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Nair-Collins M, Northrup J, Olcese J. Hypothalamic-pituitary function in brain death: a review. J Intensive Care Med. 2016;31:41–50.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  17. Bourque CW. Central mechanisms of osmosensation and systemic osmoregulation. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2008;9:519–31.

    CrossRef  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Outwater KM, Rockoff MA. Diabetes insipidus accompanying brain death in children. Neurology. 1984;34(9):1243–6.

    CrossRef  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Powner DJ, Snyder JV, Grenvik A. Brain death certification: a review. Crit Care Med. 1977;5(5):230–3.

    CrossRef  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Russell JA, Epstein LG, Greer DM, et al. AAN position statement. Brain death, the determination of brain death, and member guidance for brain death accommodation requests. Neurology. 2019;92:1–5.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  21. Bernat JL. The whole-brain concept of death remains optimum public policy. J Law Med Ethics. 2006;34(1):35–43.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  22. Wijdicks EF. The case against confirmatory tests for determining brain death in adults. Neurology. 2010;75(1):77–83.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  23. Nair-Collins M. Taking science seriously in the debate on death and organ transplantation. Hast Cent Rep. 2015;45:38–48.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  24. Lewis A, Bonnie RJ, Pope T. It’s time to revise the Uniform Determination of Death Act. Ann Intern Med. 2020;172(2):143–4.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  25. Lewis A, Bonnie RJ, Pope T, et al. Determination of death by neurologic criteria in the United States: the case for revising the Uniform Determination of Death Act. J Law Med Ethics. 2019;47(S4):9–24.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  26. Magnus DC, Wilfond BS, Caplan AL. Accepting brain death. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(10):891–4.

    CrossRef  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Some of the ideas for this chapter are drawn from an earlier published manuscript [14]. I gratefully acknowledge my coauthor Dr. Ari Joffe for collaboration on this earlier paper, and thank him for permission to rearticulate some of those ideas in the present chapter.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Nair-Collins .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Nair-Collins, M. (2022). Preserved Hypothalamic Function Is Not Consistent with the Whole-Brain Criterion for Death. In: Lewis, A., Bernat, J.L. (eds) Death Determination by Neurologic Criteria. Advances in Neuroethics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15947-3_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15947-3_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-15946-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-15947-3

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)