Just last month, there were two major developments reported on the controversial issue of brain death. One was an article about a lawsuit to revoke the death certificate of Jahi McMath, a California teenager who was declared brain dead 2 years ago but is still alive and apparently showing some signs of improvement.
The other was a December 30, 2015 article in Medscape, a website for medical professionals that requires subscription, titled “Not All Hospital Brain Death Policies Comply With Guidelines” . The article reports on a medical journal study titled “Variability of Brain Death Policies in the United States.”
Jahi McMath, a 13-year-old girl, underwent a routine surgery for sleep apnea in December 2013 at a California children’s hospital. That night she started bleeding and eventually her heart stopped. Her heart was restarted and she was placed on a ventilator to stabilize her condition, but soon the doctors declared her brain dead and prepared to remove the ventilator. However, the family insisted that the ventilator be continued, hoping that Jahi might eventually get better.
The doctors disagreed, insisting that Jahi was legally dead by brain death criteria. The parents went to court to keep the doctors from removing her ventilator but after a series of legal battles lasting weeks, a judge eventually gave Jahi’s family permission to transfer her to another facility that would continue the ventilator.
Virtually all the ethicists and other experts contacted by most media outlets condemned the family’s actions as denying the reality of brain death. In a January 10, 2014 USA Today article, ethicist Arthur Caplan, head of the bioethics division at New York University’s Langone Medical Center, criticized the judge’s decision for Jahi’s family, declaring that Jahi’s new doctors are “trying to ventilate and otherwise treat a corpse,” Caplan said. “She is going to start to decompose.”
Now, 2 years after Jahi was declared brain dead, her family is in federal court suing to revoke her death certificate because as their experts contend
“At this time, Jahi does not fulfill California’s statutory definition of death, which requires the irreversible absence of all brain function, because she exhibits hypothalamic function and intermittent responsiveness to verbal commands.”
A future ruling revoking Ms. McMath’s death certificate would be groundbreaking.
“Variability of Brain Death Policies in the United States.”
In this December 28, 2013 Journal of the American Medical Association Neurology article, a study was done of 508 US hospital policies on brain death determination.
Alarmingly, the article states that hospital brain death criteria requirements “are not 100% compliant” even with updated 2010 guidelines by the American Academy of Neurology which require only one examination to determine brain death.
And of the total 508 hospitals, the article states that only
“about a third of policies (33.1%) required specialist expertise in neurology or neurosurgery, but 150 policies had no mention of who could perform the determination. Many policies still allow for more junior physicians to determine brain death, the authors noted.” (Emphasis added)
Also disturbing, the article noted that some policies didn’t require testing of lower brainstem function (required for a finding of irreversible loss of all brain functions) with less than 80% of the policies requiring the absence of a cough reflex. Only 57.2% of hospital brain death policies required that oxygen be given to maintain oxygenation during the critical apnea test to determine if a patient can take breaths off a ventilator, even though low a low oxygen level can lead to more brain damage.
In an effort to reassure, Gene Sung, MD, past-president, Neurocritical Care Society, and director, Division of Neurocritical Care and Stroke at UCLA claims that he
agreed that there have there have been no documented reports of regaining function after a declaration of brain death. “But still, we don’t know for sure; maybe mistakes happened and they weren’t reported,” he said. (Emphasis added)
Actually, there have been multiple reported cases of people regaining at least some function after a brain death declaration such as Zach Dunlap (who fully recovered) as well as Jahi McMath.
If as Dr Greer, the lead author of the study, states “This is one of those diagnoses where we need to be correct 100% of the time”, must we not rigorously examine such cases to determine if or why there was a misdiagnosis to ensure that current brain death guidelines really hold up to scrutiny?
Besides the potential premature loss of lives, our medical integrity is at stake and we medical professionals must prove worthy of the trust society gives us.