Journal of Medical Ethics 29 (3):201-202 (2003)

Kerridge et al recently published a paper in the journal about organ transplantation and the diagnosis of death.1 Although I appreciate the authors’ efforts to present their arguments about such a controversial issue, I found some inconsistencies in this article that I would like to discussWhen Kerridge and his collaborators discussed the origins of the concept of brain death , they emphasised that after the report of the medical consultants on the diagnosis of death to the US President’s Commission was published in 1981,2 clinicians equated the concept of BD with brainstem death. In fact, the brainstem criterion was first proposed by Mohandas and Chou in Minnesota, in 1971.3 The Minnesota criteria inspired the UK code, which was mainly adopted in UK commonwealth countries.4 This view was afterwards powerfully defended by Christopher Pallis.5 After the US President’s Commission report,2 a lot of countries, and most US states, accepted the whole brain, and not the brainstem, criterion.6Regarding the “dead donor rule”, with the advent of transplant surgery, interest in definitions and diagnosis of death based on brain formulations really acquired a new urgency. None the less, it is important to point out that the concept of BD as death of the individual, did not appear to benefit organ transplantation, but was a consequence of the development of intensive care. As Pallis emphasised, if organ transplant techniques had never been developed, intensive care procedures would have provided the possibility of supplying life support to those cases with destroyed brains and preserved heart function, and physicians would need to face the clinical syndrome called BD.5 When French neurophysiologists and neurologists described the death of the nervous system and coma dépassé, organ transplant techniques were only in the very early stages of development. …
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1136/jme.29.3.201
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 62,481
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

An Alternative to an Alternative to Brain Death.Peter Koch - 2009 - Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 83:89-98.
Defining Death for Persons and Human Organisms.John P. Lizza - 1999 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 20 (5):439-453.
Morality and Marketing Human Organs.Shaheen Borna - 1987 - Journal of Business Ethics 6 (1):37 - 44.
Death Revisited: Rethinking Death and the Dead Donor Rule.A. S. Iltis & M. J. Cherry - 2010 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 35 (3):223-241.
Potentiality, Irreversibility, and Death.John P. Lizza - 2005 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 30 (1):45 – 64.
Reevaluating the Dead Donor Rule.Mike Collins - 2010 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 35 (2):1-26.


Added to PP index

Total views
26 ( #418,343 of 2,446,240 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #456,899 of 2,446,240 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes