Halevy A, Brody B
Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.
Ann Intern Med. 1993 Sep 15;119(6):519-25. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-119-6-199309150-00013.
Brain death has been discussed extensively for the last 25 years. Most investigators now believe that requiring death of the entire brain as the criterion for brain death in the Uniform Determination of Death Act and the standard clinical tests of brain death outlined in the Report of the Medical Consultants to the President's Commission have produced a satisfactory resolution of the issues surrounding the determination of death. However, we show that satisfying the standard medical tests does not guarantee that all brain functions have actually ceased and that there is tension between the legal criterion and the standard clinical tests. After considering and rejecting six possible reconciliations, we present an alternative approach that does not acknowledge any sharp dichotomy between life and death and incorporates the proposition that the questions of when care can be unilaterally discontinued, when organs can be harvested, and when a patient is ready for the services of an undertaker should be answered independent of any single account of death.
在过去25年里,脑死亡问题得到了广泛讨论。现在大多数研究者认为,《统一死亡判定法案》中将全脑死亡作为脑死亡标准,以及总统委员会医学顾问报告中概述的脑死亡标准临床测试,已经对围绕死亡判定的问题给出了令人满意的解决方案。然而,我们表明,满足标准医学测试并不能保证所有脑功能实际上已经停止,而且法律标准与标准临床测试之间存在矛盾。在考虑并否定了六种可能的调和方法后,我们提出了一种替代方法,该方法不承认生与死之间有任何明显的二分法,并包含这样一种观点,即何时可以单方面停止治疗、何时可以摘取器官以及何时患者可以接受殡仪服务等问题,应该独立于任何单一的死亡定义来回答。