[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
November 24, 1989

'Brain Death'-Reply

Author Affiliations

University of Wisconsin Medical School Madison
New Jersey Commission on Legal and Ethical Problems in the Delivery of Health Care Trenton

University of Wisconsin Medical School Madison
New Jersey Commission on Legal and Ethical Problems in the Delivery of Health Care Trenton

JAMA. 1989;262(20):2835. doi:10.1001/jama.1989.03430200078022

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.

Abstract

In Reply. —  These somewhat contradictory letters demonstrate the difficulty of achieving clarity in discussing the definition of death. Rabbi Tendler and Dr Rosner misread our editorial as proposing a rejection of whole-brain criteria and a return to the old, heart-lung definition of death, while Dr Oro takes us to task for endorsing a new, "higher brain" definition. In fact, the editorial explicitly endorses current laws based on the irreversible loss of all functions of the entire brain as the best approach for the present. Our aim was to question the too-little examined assumption that the whole-brain definition has a solid conceptual foundation, above and beyond its evident practical utility.The debate over defining death has focused on three rival definitions: the traditional version, based on permanent cessation of heart and lung function; the recently accepted whole-brain revision, involving irreversible cessation of all brain functions; and the so-called higher brain

×