Neuroethics 8 (3):299-313 (2015)

Authors
Abstract
BackgroundThe brain death standard allowing a declaration of death based on neurological criteria is legally endorsed and routinely practiced in the West but not in Asia. In China, attempts to legalize the brain death standard have occurred several times without success. Cultural, religious, and philosophical factors have been proposed to explain this difference, but there is a lack of empirical studies to support this hypothesis.Methods476 medical providers from three academic hospitals in Hunan, China, completed a selfadministered survey including a 12-question brain death clinical knowledge assessment and hypothetical vignettes describing brain dead patients.ResultsThe response rate was 95.2 %. Almost all of the providers had heard of the term “brain death.” More than half have encountered presumed brain dead patients. Two-thirds accepted brain death as an ethical standard to determine human death. The mean knowledge score was 8.50 ± 1.83 out of 12. When given the description of a brain dead patient, 50.7 % considered the patient dead, 51.9 % would withdraw life support, and 40.6 % would allow organ procurement. Both provider and patient characteristics contributed to the providers’ decisions. Ethical acceptance was the most important independent predictor for brain death acknowledgement, followed by high knowledge scores, and the belief that the soul lives in the brain. Religious faith and associated beliefs did not have a significant effect.ConclusionsNotwithstanding scarce official accounts, recognition of the brain death standard is not uncommon in China. Chinese medical providers can adequately define the medical characteristics of brain death and accept it in theory, but hesitate to apply it to practice in the vignettes. Legalization is paramount in providing the protection providers need to comfortably declare brain death. However the medical decision-making surrounding brain death is complex and the provider's past experiences and emotions may also influence the process
Keywords Brain death  Neurological criteria for death  China  Medical decision-making
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s12152-015-9238-3
Options
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: 58,276
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Is It Time to Abandon Brain Death?Robert D. Truog - 1997 - Hastings Center Report 27 (1):29-37.

View all 8 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Death, Brain Death, and Ethics.David Lamb - 1985 - State University of New York Press.
Decapitation and the Definition of Death.F. G. Miller & R. D. Truog - 2010 - Journal of Medical Ethics 36 (10):632-634.
Whole-Brain Death Reconsidered.A. Browne - 1983 - Journal of Medical Ethics 9 (1):28-44.
Analytic Philosophy And Death: Brain Death And Personal Identity.Maurizio Salvi - 1996 - Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 6 (5):123-124.
Reevaluating the Dead Donor Rule.Mike Collins - 2010 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 35 (2):1-26.
The Whole-Brain Concept of Death Remains Optimum Public Policy.James L. Bernat - 2006 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 34 (1):35-43.
The Problematic Symmetry Between Brain Birth and Brain Death.D. G. Jones - 1998 - Journal of Medical Ethics 24 (4):237-242.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2015-08-10

Total views
17 ( #594,279 of 2,419,623 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #542,420 of 2,419,623 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes