4.4 Article

Should the Revised Uniform Determination of Death Act Address Objections to the Use of Neurologic Criteria to Declare Death?

期刊

NEUROCRITICAL CARE
卷 37, 期 2, 页码 377-385

出版社

HUMANA PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1007/s12028-022-01567-3

关键词

Brain death; Ethics; Medicolegal; Religion; Accommodation; Uniform Determination of Death Act

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article provides a historical background and survey results related to the revision of the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) and explores the ethical principles and existing guidance regarding objections to the use of neurologic criteria to declare death. It also examines the perspectives of stakeholders and identifies questions for the drafting committee to consider, as well as the potential downstream effects of their decision.
In response to concerns about the declaration of death by neurologic criteria, the Uniform Law Commission created a drafting committee to update the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) in the Fall of 2021. One of the key questions for the committee to address was the following: Should the revised UDDA address objections to the use of neurologic criteria to declare death? This article (1) provides historical background and survey results that demonstrate the need to address this question; (2) summarizes the ethical principles that support and oppose accommodation of objections to the use of neurologic criteria to declare death; (3) reviews accommodation in other areas of medicine and law; (4) discusses existing legal and hospital guidance on management of these objections; (5) examines perspectives of stakeholder medical societies and expert health care professionals, lawyers, ethicists, and philosophers on whether the revised UDDA should address these objections; (6) identifies some questions for the drafting committee to consider when deciding whether the revised UDDA should address objections to the use of neurologic criteria to declare death; and (7) summarizes the potential downstream effects of the drafting committee's decision.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据