Incoherence in the Brain Death Guideline Regarding Brain Blood Flow Testing: Lessons from the Much-Publicized Case of Zack Dunlap.

IF 0.4 Q4 MEDICAL ETHICS
Doyen Nguyen, Christine M Zainer
{"title":"Incoherence in the Brain Death Guideline Regarding Brain Blood Flow Testing: Lessons from the Much-Publicized Case of Zack Dunlap.","authors":"Doyen Nguyen, Christine M Zainer","doi":"10.1177/00243639251317690","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>At age 21, following a severe traumatic brain injury, Zack Dunlap was declared brain-dead according to the American Academy of Neurology guideline (Guideline) when he met the clinical criteria of brain death (minus apnea testing because of bradycardia) with technetium-99m diethylene-triamine-pentaacetate scintigraphy reported as showing no intracranial blood flow. His parents agreed to organ donation. During preparations for organ donation, Zack manifested a purposeful movement in response to a noxious stimulus made by his cousin. Following subsequent neurological recovery, he has returned to a normal life, holding steady employment and raising a family. During an interview, he reported that while in coma, he heard a doctor say that he was brain-dead and felt angry about it. His experience fits the phenomenon of cognitive-motor dissociation. Recently, Zack's medical records were made available to the first author. A critical review of the records uncovered a problem inherent in the logic of the Guideline algorithm regarding brain blood flow scintigraphy. This article discusses the lessons drawn from Zack's case, namely, that both the aforementioned problem and the occurrence of cognitive-motor dissociation in patients deemed to be brain-dead can pose a significant risk of a false-positive declaration of death.</p>","PeriodicalId":44238,"journal":{"name":"Linacre Quarterly","volume":" ","pages":"00243639251317690"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11795570/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Linacre Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00243639251317690","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICAL ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

At age 21, following a severe traumatic brain injury, Zack Dunlap was declared brain-dead according to the American Academy of Neurology guideline (Guideline) when he met the clinical criteria of brain death (minus apnea testing because of bradycardia) with technetium-99m diethylene-triamine-pentaacetate scintigraphy reported as showing no intracranial blood flow. His parents agreed to organ donation. During preparations for organ donation, Zack manifested a purposeful movement in response to a noxious stimulus made by his cousin. Following subsequent neurological recovery, he has returned to a normal life, holding steady employment and raising a family. During an interview, he reported that while in coma, he heard a doctor say that he was brain-dead and felt angry about it. His experience fits the phenomenon of cognitive-motor dissociation. Recently, Zack's medical records were made available to the first author. A critical review of the records uncovered a problem inherent in the logic of the Guideline algorithm regarding brain blood flow scintigraphy. This article discusses the lessons drawn from Zack's case, namely, that both the aforementioned problem and the occurrence of cognitive-motor dissociation in patients deemed to be brain-dead can pose a significant risk of a false-positive declaration of death.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Linacre Quarterly
Linacre Quarterly MEDICAL ETHICS-
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
40.00%
发文量
57
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信