Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Typ-2-Diabetes und Adipositas Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Journal of Religion and Health
Erschienen in: Journal of Religion and Health 6/2016

19.08.2016 | Philosophical Exploration

When Brain Death Belies Belief

verfasst von: Greg Yanke, Mohamed Y. Rady, Joseph L. Verheijde

Erschienen in: Journal of Religion and Health | Ausgabe 6/2016

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

The case of Jahi McMath has reignited a discussion concerning how society should define death. Despite pronouncing McMath brain dead based on the American Academy of Neurology criteria, the court ordered continued mechanical ventilation to accommodate the family’s religious beliefs. Recent case law suggests that the potential for a successful challenge to the neurologic criteria of death provisions of the Uniform Determination of Death Act are greater than ever in the majority of states that have passed religious freedom legislation. As well, because standard ethical claims regarding brain death are either patently untrue or subject to legitimate dispute, those whose beliefs do not comport with the brain death standard should be able to reject it.
Literatur
Ayeh, D. D., Tak, H. J., Yoon, J. D., & Curlin, F. A. (2016). U.S. physicians’ opinions about accommodating religiously based requests for continued life-sustaining treatment. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 51(6), 971–978.CrossRefPubMed
Bernat, J. L., & Larriviere, D. (2014). Areas of persisting controversy in brain death. Neurology, 83(16), 1394–1395.CrossRefPubMed
Burkle, C. M., Sharp, R. R., & Wijdicks, E. F. (2014). Why brain death is considered death and why there should be no confusion. Neurology, 83(16), 1464–1469.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 2751 (2014).
City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997).
Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health 497 U.S. 261 (1990).
Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 (1890).
Delaney, R. (2010). Defining death: Why all 50 states should adopt the Uniform Definition of Death Act with a religious exception. Marquette University Legal Studies Research Paper Series: Research Paper No. 10–24.
Employment Division, Department of Human Resources v. Smith, 494 US 872 (1990).
Feinberg, J. (1984). Harm to others. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fins, J. J. (1995). Across the divide: Religious objections to brain death. Journal of Religion and Health, 34(1), 33–39.CrossRefPubMed
Fins, J. J. (2015). Rights come to mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Ghosal, S., & Greer, D. M. (2015). Why is diagnosing brain death so confusing? Current Opinion in Critical Care, 21, 107–112.CrossRef
Gonzales v. Carthart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007).
Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 416 (2006).
Greer, D. M., Wang, H. H., Robinson, J. D., Varelas, P. N., Henderson, G. V., & Wijdicks, E. F. (2016). Variability of brain death policies in the United States. JAMA Neurology, 73(2), 213–218.CrossRefPubMed
In Re Guardianship Hailu, 2015 NV 89 (2015).
Isaacson v. Horne, 716 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir. 2013).
Joffe, A., Anton, N. R., Duff, J. P., & deCaen, A. (2012). A survey of American neurologists about brain death: Understanding the conceptual basis and underlying diagnostic tests for brain death. Annals of Intensive Care, 2(4), 1–8.
Kahn, P. A. (2016). Bioethics, religion, and public policy: Intersections, interactions, and solutions. Journal of Religion and Health, 55(5), 1546–1560.CrossRefPubMed
Kotloff, R. M., Blosser, S., Fulda, G. J., Malinoski, D., Ahya, V. N., Angel, L., et al. (2015). Management of the potential organ donor in the ICU: Society of Critical Care Medicine/American College of Chest Physicians/Association of Organ Procurement Organizations Consensus Statement. Critical Care Medicine, 43(6), 1291–1325.CrossRefPubMed
Luper, S. (2004). Posthumous harm. American Philosophical Quarterly, 41(1), 63–72.
Luper, S. (2013). Retroactive harms and wrongs. In B. Bradley, F. Feldman, & J. Johansson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of philosophy of death (pp. 317–335). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Magnus, D. C., Wilfond, B. S., & Caplan, A. L. (2014). Accepting brain death. New England Journal of Medicine, 370(10), 891–894.CrossRefPubMed
Nair-Collins, M. (2010). Death, brain death, and the limits of science: Why the whole-brain concept of death is a flawed public policy. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, 38(3), 667–683.CrossRefPubMed
Paris, J. J., Cummings, B. M., & Moore, M. P. (2014). ‘Brain death’, ‘dead’, and parental denial. Cambridge Quarterly of Heathcare Ethics, 23, 371–382.CrossRef
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119, codified as 42 U.S.C. § 18001 (2010).
Peterson, A., Norton, L., Naci, L., Owen, A. M., & Weijer, C. (2014). Toward a science of brain death. American Journal of Bioethics, 14(8), 29–31.CrossRefPubMed
Pope, T. (2015). Brain death: Legal duties to accommodate religious objections. Chest, 148(2), E69.CrossRefPubMed
Portmore, D. W. (2007). Desire fulfillment and posthumous harm. American Philosophical Quarterly, 44(1), 27–38.
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.
President’s Council on Bioethics. (2008). Controversies in the determination of death. Washington: President’s Council on Bioethics.
Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Pub. L. No. 103-141, 107 Stat. 1488 (1993).
Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878).
Robertson, J. (2014). Should we scrap the death donor rule? American Journal of Bioethics, 14(8), 52–53.CrossRefPubMed
Shappell, C. N., Frank, J. I., Husari, K., Sanchez, M., Goldenberg, F., & Ardelt, A. (2013). Practice variability in brain death determination: A call to action. Neurology, 81(23), 2009–2014.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963).
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.CrossRefPubMed
Sperling, D. (2008). Posthumous interests: Legal and ethical perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516 (1945).
Truog, R. D., & Miller, F. G. (2014). Changing the conversation about brain death. American Journal of Bioethics, 14(8), 9–14.CrossRefPubMed
Uniform Determination of Death Act, 12 Uniform Laws Annotated (U.L.A.) 589 (West 1993 and West Supp. 1997).
United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78 (1944).
United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965).
Verheijde, J. L., Rady, M. Y., & McGregor, J. L. (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.CrossRef
Washington v. Glucksberg, 501 U.S. 702 (1997).
Wijdicks, E. F., & Pfeifer, E. A. (2008). Neuropathology of brain death in the modern transplant era. Neurology, 70(15), 1234–1237.CrossRefPubMed
Winkfield v. Children’s Hospital Oakland. Case No. C13-5993 SBA, California Northern District Ct: Oakland Division (2013).
Metadaten
Titel
When Brain Death Belies Belief
verfasst von
Greg Yanke
Mohamed Y. Rady
Joseph L. Verheijde
Publikationsdatum
19.08.2016
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Journal of Religion and Health / Ausgabe 6/2016
Print ISSN: 0022-4197
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-6571
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-016-0298-4

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 6/2016

Journal of Religion and Health 6/2016 Zur Ausgabe

Psychological Exploration

The Self-Compassion Scale is Not Validated in a Buddhist Sample

Original Paper

Exploring Existential Coping Resources: The Perspective of Koreans with Cancer

Original Paper

Religious Beliefs Against Smoking Among Black and White Urban Youth

Original Paper

Parental and God Representations Among Individuals with Psychosis: A Grounded Theory Analysis

Original Paper

A Synthesis of Spiritual Intelligence Themes from Islamic and Western Philosophical Perspectives

Original Paper

The Role of Mediators in the Indirect Effects of Religiosity on Therapeutic Compliance in African Migrant HIV-Positive Patients