THE HISTORY OF BRAIN DEATH

In December of 1967, the first successful heart transplant was performed in South Africa by Dr. Christian Barnard. At that time, there were no guidelines for the diagnosis of death for beating heart donors.

In September of 1968, the Report of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School to Examine the Definition of Brain Death was published with the purpose of defining irreversible coma as a new criterion for death.

This was done for two stated  reasons:

1.) “Improvements in resuscitative and supportive measures have led to increase efforts to save those who are desperately injured. Sometimes these efforts have only partial success so that the result is an individual  whose heart continues to beat but whose brain is irreversibly damaged. The burden is great on patients who suffer permanent loss of intellect, on their families, on the hospitals and on those in need of hospital beds already occupied by these comatose patients.“

2.) “Obsolete criteria for the definition of death can lead to controversy in obtaining organs for transplantation.” (All emphasis added)

This report was quickly accepted by many and in 1968, the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act was passed in the US  as a regulatory framework for the donation of organs, tissues and other human body parts. The Act allowed the donation of whole or part of a human body to take effect upon or after the death of the donor.

The Uniform Declaration of Death Act (UDDA) was drafted in 1981 by a President’s Commission study to brain death and approved by both the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Bar Association (ABA). It was intended to provide a model for states to emulate.

It offered 2 definitions of when a person could be declared legally dead to align the legal definition of death with the criteria largely accepted by the medical community:

1.) “Irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions (the traditional definition of death); or

2.) Irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem (brain death)” (Emphasis added)

The UDDA in some form has since been adopted by all U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

However, in the June 2020 issue of the American Journal of Bioethics,  the well-known lawyer/ethicist Thaddeus Mason Pope wrote about a current effort “to revise the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) to assure a consistent nationwide approach to consent for brain death testing.” (Emphasis added)

Why just consent to brain death testing?

According to Mr. Pope:

Right now, a patient might be legally dead in Nevada, New York, or Virginia (where consent is not required). But that same patient might not be legally dead in California, Kansas, or Montana (where consent is required and might be refused). (Emphasis added)

Instead, Mr. Pope proposes adding this to the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA):

Reasonable efforts should be made to notify a patient’s legally authorized decision-maker before performing a determination of death by neurologic criteria, but consent is not required to initiate such an evaluation. (Emphasis added)

Mr. Pope states that typically, the Uniform Law Commission (ULC) follows a four-step process to change a law but notes that the Healthcare Law Committee has already skipped the first three steps and is ready for drafting the new language in the fourth step.

Ironically, there was a case last year in Michigan where the parents of a teenager  pushed for a Bobby’s Law after their son was taken off life support after being declared brain dead despite their objections. The law would “require a minor’s parents to consent to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment or to give do-not-resuscitate orders before medical professionals could end life support for a juvenile” and also allow the parents to defer an apnea test (taking the person off a ventilator to see if the person is able to breathe on his or her own) required to determine brain death. (Emphasis added)

THE WORLD BRAIN DEATH PROJECT

In an August 3, 2020 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) titled “Determination of Brain Death/Death by Neurologic Criteria- The World Brain Death Project” , the authors state that due to “inconsistencies in concept, criteria, practice, and documentation of brain death/death by neurologic criteria (BD/DNC) both internationally and within countries”, there is a need to “formulate a consensus statement of recommendations on determination of BD/DNC”. (Emphasis added)

In an August 3, 2020 Medpage Today article “Brain Death: What Does It Mean?” on the World Brain Death Project, the writer notes that the “guidelines recommend that consent not be required for apnea testing because of concerns over prolonged somatic support” while quoting a doctor who disagreed:

Ostensibly, families should be asked to provide consent because the apnea test may lead to cardiovascular collapse in some patients, classifying it as procedure with risk, (All emphasis added)

MY JOURNEY TO DISCOVER THE FACTS ABOUT BRAIN DEATH

Back in the early 1970s when I was a young intensive care unit nurse, no one questioned the new innovation of brain death organ transplantation. We trusted the experts and the prevailing medical ethic of the utmost respect for every human life.

However, as the doctors diagnosed brain death in our unit and I cared for these patients until their organs were harvested, I started to ask questions. For example, doctors assured us that these patients would die anyway within two weeks even if the ventilator to support breathing was continued, but no studies were cited. I also asked if we were making a brain-injured patient worse by removing the ventilator for up to 10 minutes for the apnea test to see if he or she would breathe since we knew that brain cells start to die when breathing stops for more than a few minutes.

I was told that greater minds than mine had it all figured out so I shouldn’t worry.

It was years before I realized that these doctors did not have the answers themselves and that my questions were valid.

I discovered that some mothers declared “brain dead” were able to gestate their babies for weeks or months to a successful delivery before their ventilators were removed and that there were cases of “brain dead” people like Jahi McMath living for  years after a diagnosis of brain death or even recovering like Zack Dunlap.

If the legal definition of brain death is truly “irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem”, these cases would seem to be impossible.

CONCLUSION

The World Brain Death Project is riddled with potential problems in establishing a worldwide consensus on brain death criteria and testing using a “set of criteria that satisfies the lowest acceptable standard for practice”. (Emphasis added) And changing the US Uniform Determination of Death Act to supersede states requiring consent before brain death testing will not inspire trust in the healthcare system or the law.

Personally, I will not sign an organ donor card or allow my organs to be taken by donation after cardiac death (DCD), a new category of severely brain-injured people who are not brain dead but who are on ventilators (breathing machines) and considered hopeless in terms of survival or predicted “quality of life”. The ventilator is removed and the patient’s heart is expected to stop. (However, a 2016 study showed that 27% of potential donors did not die within the window specified for organ recovery.)

Instead, my family knows that I am willing to donate tissues like corneas, skin, bones, etc. that can be ethically donated after natural death.

It is vitally important that everyone understands all the facts before signing an organ donor card.

And we all should demand transparency and rigorous medical ethics from our healthcare system.

This article was originally published at NancyValko.com.

An April, 2019 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association titled “Attitudes Toward Physician-Assisted Death From Individuals Who Learn They Have an Alzheimer Disease Biomarker” found that  approximately 20% of cognitively normal older adults who had elevated beta-amyloid — a biomarker that is thought to increase the risk of Alzheimer’s disease — said they would consider physician-assisted suicide if they experienced a cognitive decline. Not everyone with amyloid plaques goes on to develop Alzheimer’s disease.

Although no state with legalized physician-assisted suicide currently allows lethal overdoses for people with Alzheimer’s or other dementia, Emily Largent, JD, PhD, RN (one of the authors of the  study) said that:

“Our research helps gauge interest in aid-in-dying among a population at risk for developing Alzheimer’s disease dementia and grappling with what they want the end of life to look like”

And

“Public support for aid-in-dying is growing…Now, we are seeing debates about whether to expand access to aid-in-dying to new populations who aren’t eligible under current laws. That includes people with neuro-degenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s disease.”

CHOOSING DEATH

As the U.S. birth rate declines to a 32-year low  while people are living longer, now there are more people older than 65 than younger than 5. This has major economic and cultural implications, especially with diseases such Alzheimer’s that usually affect older people.

Back in 2012, I wrote about a Nursing Economic$ Summit “How Can We Afford to Die?” that had an 8 point action plan. One of the points discussed the importance of getting everyone over the age of 18 to sign “living wills” and other advance directions that also included the caveat: “if many patients have advance directives that make positive, cost-conscious systemic change impossible, most of the other efforts discussed as part of our  action plan will go for naught”. (Emphasis added).

It should not be a surprise that the latest Oregon physician-assisted suicide report shows that 79.2% of those people dying by assisted suicide were age 65 or older and most reported concerns such as “loss of autonomy” and “burden on family, friends/caregivers”.

With Alzheimer’s disease routinely portrayed as the worst case scenario at the end of life for a person (and their family), there are now programs to “help” people plan their own end of life care.

Such programs include Death Cafes where “people drink tea, eat cake and discuss death” and the Conversation Project that is “dedicated to helping people talk about their wishes for end-of-life care.” The Conversation Project was co-founded by journalist Ellen Goodman after years of caring for her mother, who had Alzheimer’s.

Compassion and Choices (the former Hemlock Society) is the largest and best funded organization working for decades to change laws and attitudes about assisted suicide and other deliberate death options. Compassion and Choices now has a contract rider for people in assisted living facilities that:

 “will respect Resident’s end-of-life choices and will not delay, interfere with nor impede any lawful option of treatment or nontreatment freely chosen by Resident or Resident’s authorized healthcare proxy or similar representative, including any of the following end-of-life options” which include:

“Forgoing or directing the withdrawal of life-prolonging treatments

Aggressive pain and/or symptom management, including palliative sedation,

Voluntary refusal of food and fluids with palliative care if needed

Any other option not specifically prohibited by the law of the state in which Facility is located.” (Emphasis added)

CONCLUSION

I have both a professional and personal interest in Alzheimer’s disease.

Having taken care of a mother with Alzheimer’s until her death, I treasure many of the moments I had with her. It is possible to both begin the eventual mourning and still appreciate the special moments that indeed do come. My mom was a very high-strung woman who constantly worried about everything. The Alzheimer’s calmed her down somewhat and especially blunted her anxiety about the presence of a tracheotomy for her thyroid cancer.

One of my favorite memories is sitting on a couch with my mom on one side and my then 2 year-old daughter on the other. Sesame Street was on and I noticed that both Mom and my daughter had exactly the same expression of delight while watching the show. A friend thought that was sad but I found it both sweet and profound that their mental capacities had intersected: One in decline, one in ascension. Perception is everything.

Also, I often took care of Alzheimer’s patients as a nurse and I enjoyed these patients while most of my colleagues just groaned. Even though such patients can be difficult at times, I found that there is usually a funny, sweet person in there who must be cared for with patience and sensitivity. I found taking care of people with Alzheimer’s very rewarding.

And although I might be at a higher risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease myself because of my mother, I won’t be taking a test for biomarkers to try to predict the future.

Instead, I will spend my time living the best life I can and hopefully helping others. I believe that life is too  precious to spend time worrying about things that might happen.

This article was originally published at NancyValko.com.

Written by Traci Devette Griggs

When Netflix first released the series 13 Reasons Why in May of 2017, school systems and public health officials all over the country warned that it could cause an increase in teenage suicide. (See previous story here.) Apparently, that is exactly what happened.

According to a study in the April 2019 Journal of American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry: “After accounting for seasonal effects and an underlying increasing trend in monthly suicide rates, the overall suicide rate among 10-17 year-olds increased significantly in the month immediately following the release.” (Netflix posts all episodes of an entire season all at once.)

Tim Winter, President of the Parents Television Council, is outraged over Netflix executives’ response to previous concerns that the first season, in particular, glamorizes teen suicide and gives kids the tragically false impression that they can exact revenge against tormentors by taking their own life. Netflix has since produced two more seasons of the show, the third to be released soon.

“This [recent research] follows another concerning statistic after the show was released,” according to Winter. “The Google search term for “How do I kill myself” went up 26 percent. So you now have evidence that there is a link between this show, targeting teenagers, targeting children, that basically romanticizes teen suicide, and a number of teenagers and children who are actually killing themselves. It’s deeply troubling.”

What’s more disturbing is that the evidence of the spike in online searches for committing suicide was from a research paper published in the Journal of the American Medical Association back in October 2017, just months after the first season aired.

“Netflix seems to be one of the biggest perpetrators in terms of explicit content marketing towards children,” continues Winter. “They have a constitutional First Amendment right to produce this type of content. But I think it is outrageous that a publicly traded corporation would market and profit, they would profit from children who watch a show, and it’s now being linked to increased rates of suicide of children.”

The rate of increase in suicide was attributed almost exclusively to boys, ages 10-17 years old, a finding that surprised researchers since the main character, who is graphically portrayed committing suicide on the show, is female. This statistic tracks suicides that result in death, not suicide attempts.

This article was originally published at the NC Family Policy Council blog.