a Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth.
Am J Bioeth. 2014;14(8):3-8. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2014.925153.
The publicity surrounding the recent McMath and Muñoz cases has rekindled public interest in brain death: the familiar term for human death determination by showing the irreversible cessation of clinical brain functions. The concept of brain death was developed decades ago to permit withdrawal of therapy in hopeless cases and to permit organ donation. It has become widely established medical practice, and laws permit it in all U.S. jurisdictions. Brain death has a biophilosophical justification as a standard for determining human death but remains poorly understood by the public and by health professionals. The current controversies over brain death are largely restricted to the academy, but some practitioners express ambivalence over whether brain death is equivalent to human death. Brain death remains an accepted and sound concept, but more work is necessary to establish its biophilosophical justification and to educate health professionals and the public.
最近麦克马思(McMath)和穆尼奥斯(Muñoz)案件的相关宣传重新唤起了公众对脑死亡的兴趣:脑死亡是通过显示临床脑功能不可逆转停止来确定人类死亡的常见术语。脑死亡的概念几十年前就已经提出,目的是在无望的情况下停止治疗,并允许器官捐献。它已成为广泛确立的医疗实践,美国所有司法管辖区都允许脑死亡。脑死亡作为确定人类死亡的标准具有生物哲学上的合理性,但公众和卫生专业人员对其了解甚少。目前,脑死亡的争议主要局限于学术界,但一些从业者对脑死亡是否等同于人类死亡表示矛盾。脑死亡仍然是一个被接受的合理概念,但需要做更多的工作来确立其生物哲学合理性,并对卫生专业人员和公众进行教育。