Son Rachel Grace, Setta Susan M
Northeastern University, 371 Holmes Hall, 360 Huntington Ave, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
BMC Med Ethics. 2018 Aug 14;19(1):76. doi: 10.1186/s12910-018-0315-0.
The 1981 Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) established the validity of both cardio-respiratory and neurological criteria of death. However, many religious traditions including most forms of Haredi Judaism (ultra-orthodox) and many varieties of Buddhism strongly disagree with death by neurological criteria (DNC). Only one state in the U.S., New Jersey, allows for both religious exemptions to DNC and provides continuation of health insurance coverage when an exception is invoked in its 1991 Declaration of Death Act (NJDDA). There is yet no quantitative or qualitative data on the frequencies of religious exemptions in New Jersey. This study gathered information about the frequency of religious exemptions and policy in New Jersey that was created out of respect for religious beliefs.
Literature and internet searches on topics related to religious objections to DNC were conducted. Fifty-three chaplains and heads of bioethics committees in New Jersey hospitals were contacted by phone or email requesting a research interview. Respondents answered a set of questions about religious exemptions to DNC at the hospital where they worked that explored the frequency of such religious exemptions in the past five years, the religious tradition indicated, and whether any request for a religious exemption had been denied. This study was approved by the Northeastern University Institutional Review Board (IRB #: 16-03-15).
Eighteen chaplains and bioethics committee members participated in a full research interview. Of these, five reported instances of religious exemptions to DNC occurring at the hospital at which they worked for a total of approximately 30-36 known exemptions in the past five years. Families sought religious exemptions because of faith in an Orthodox Judaism tradition and nonreligious reasons. No failed attempts to obtain an exemption were reported.
Religious exemptions to DNC in New Jersey do occur, although very infrequently. Prior to this study, there was no information on their frequency. Considering religious exemptions do occur, there is a need for national or state policies that addresses both religious objections to DNC and hospital resources. More information is needed to better understand the impact of granting religious exemptions before new policy can be established.
1981年的《统一死亡判定法案》(UDDA)确立了心肺和神经学死亡标准的有效性。然而,包括大多数极端正统犹太教形式在内的许多宗教传统以及多种佛教流派强烈反对基于神经学标准的死亡判定(DNC)。在美国,只有新泽西州允许对DNC的宗教豁免,并且在其1991年的《死亡宣告法案》(NJDDA)中规定,当援引豁免时可继续提供医疗保险。目前尚无关于新泽西州宗教豁免频率的定量或定性数据。本研究收集了有关新泽西州宗教豁免频率以及出于对宗教信仰尊重而制定的政策的信息。
对与宗教反对DNC相关的主题进行了文献和互联网搜索。通过电话或电子邮件联系了新泽西州医院的53名牧师和生物伦理委员会负责人,请求进行研究访谈。受访者回答了一系列关于他们工作的医院对DNC的宗教豁免问题,这些问题探讨了过去五年中此类宗教豁免的频率、所表明的宗教传统以及是否有任何宗教豁免请求被拒绝。本研究获得了东北大学机构审查委员会的批准(IRB编号:16 - 03 - 15)。
18名牧师和生物伦理委员会成员参与了全面的研究访谈。其中,5人报告了他们工作的医院发生的DNC宗教豁免情况,在过去五年中共有约30 - 36次已知的豁免。家庭因对东正教犹太教传统的信仰和非宗教原因寻求宗教豁免。没有报告豁免申请失败的情况。
新泽西州确实存在对DNC的宗教豁免,尽管非常罕见。在本研究之前,没有关于其频率的信息。鉴于宗教豁免确实存在,需要制定国家或州政策来解决宗教对DNC的反对以及医院资源问题。在制定新政策之前,需要更多信息以更好地理解给予宗教豁免的影响。