解决脑死亡误诊问题。

IF 1.6 4区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS
Marjorie Fitzsimmons, Katherine Drabiak, Prithvi Shetty
{"title":"解决脑死亡误诊问题。","authors":"Marjorie Fitzsimmons, Katherine Drabiak, Prithvi Shetty","doi":"10.1017/jme.2025.10107","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Recent literature describes the controversy relating to brain death/death by neurological criteria (DNC), which some have referred to as \"widely accepted, but not universally supported.\" This article provides an overview of differences in state laws relating to DNC and describes recent proposals to reform the definition of brain death. In 2023, the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) issued clinical guidelines stating that clinicians may declare a patient DNC despite evidence of neuroendocrine function - a position that directly conflicts with state law requirements for determining death. This article offers a critical analysis of AAN guidelines, an update on proposals to reform the Uniform Determination of Death Act, and explains why policy discussions should include how DNC exams occur in practice. Research suggests there are flaws with current clinical testing methods, which contributes to two separate problems: (1) false positives from insufficient testing, and (2) inadvertent misdiagnosis from unintentional errors. Together, this has produced confusion and reduced public trust in the concept of brain death. This article provides recommendations to clarify and retain the current legal standard for brain death, explains the ethical importance of accurate standards for determining DNC, and offers practical solutions to reduce errors.</p>","PeriodicalId":50165,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"1-10"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Addressing the Problem of Brain Death Misdiagnosis.\",\"authors\":\"Marjorie Fitzsimmons, Katherine Drabiak, Prithvi Shetty\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/jme.2025.10107\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Recent literature describes the controversy relating to brain death/death by neurological criteria (DNC), which some have referred to as \\\"widely accepted, but not universally supported.\\\" This article provides an overview of differences in state laws relating to DNC and describes recent proposals to reform the definition of brain death. In 2023, the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) issued clinical guidelines stating that clinicians may declare a patient DNC despite evidence of neuroendocrine function - a position that directly conflicts with state law requirements for determining death. This article offers a critical analysis of AAN guidelines, an update on proposals to reform the Uniform Determination of Death Act, and explains why policy discussions should include how DNC exams occur in practice. Research suggests there are flaws with current clinical testing methods, which contributes to two separate problems: (1) false positives from insufficient testing, and (2) inadvertent misdiagnosis from unintentional errors. Together, this has produced confusion and reduced public trust in the concept of brain death. This article provides recommendations to clarify and retain the current legal standard for brain death, explains the ethical importance of accurate standards for determining DNC, and offers practical solutions to reduce errors.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50165,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-10\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/jme.2025.10107\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/jme.2025.10107","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

最近的文献描述了与脑死亡/神经学标准死亡(DNC)有关的争议,一些人称之为“被广泛接受,但没有得到普遍支持”。本文概述了与DNC相关的各州法律的差异,并描述了最近改革脑死亡定义的建议。2023年,美国神经病学学会(AAN)发布了临床指南,指出临床医生可以在有神经内分泌功能证据的情况下宣布患者为DNC——这一立场直接与州法律确定死亡的要求相冲突。本文对AAN指南进行了批判性分析,对改革《统一死亡决定法案》的建议进行了更新,并解释了为什么政策讨论应该包括DNC考试在实践中的发生方式。研究表明,目前的临床检测方法存在缺陷,这导致了两个独立的问题:(1)检测不足导致的假阳性;(2)无意的错误导致的误诊。总之,这造成了混乱,降低了公众对脑死亡概念的信任。本文提供了澄清和保留当前脑死亡法律标准的建议,解释了确定DNC准确标准的道德重要性,并提供了减少错误的实际解决方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Addressing the Problem of Brain Death Misdiagnosis.

Recent literature describes the controversy relating to brain death/death by neurological criteria (DNC), which some have referred to as "widely accepted, but not universally supported." This article provides an overview of differences in state laws relating to DNC and describes recent proposals to reform the definition of brain death. In 2023, the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) issued clinical guidelines stating that clinicians may declare a patient DNC despite evidence of neuroendocrine function - a position that directly conflicts with state law requirements for determining death. This article offers a critical analysis of AAN guidelines, an update on proposals to reform the Uniform Determination of Death Act, and explains why policy discussions should include how DNC exams occur in practice. Research suggests there are flaws with current clinical testing methods, which contributes to two separate problems: (1) false positives from insufficient testing, and (2) inadvertent misdiagnosis from unintentional errors. Together, this has produced confusion and reduced public trust in the concept of brain death. This article provides recommendations to clarify and retain the current legal standard for brain death, explains the ethical importance of accurate standards for determining DNC, and offers practical solutions to reduce errors.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics
Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics 医学-医学:法
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
4.80%
发文量
70
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Material published in The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics (JLME) contributes to the educational mission of The American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics, covering public health, health disparities, patient safety and quality of care, and biomedical science and research. It provides articles on such timely topics as health care quality and access, managed care, pain relief, genetics, child/maternal health, reproductive health, informed consent, assisted dying, ethics committees, HIV/AIDS, and public health. Symposium issues review significant policy developments, health law court decisions, and books.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信