Brain Death Scenarios

Mr. B, the patient’s brother is Mr. E’s designee to make healthcare decisions in the event that he is unable to do so for himself. He is left to make these decisions without a code of ethics or without medical knowledge. He counts on the medical professionals to assist him. He has an ethical obligation to abide by his brothers wishes and directives. He is influenced by his own beliefs and his perceptions of what his brother would want. If he has the good faith belief that his brother did not understand the need for the ventilator or the outcome of refusing the treatment, then it is not unreasonable or unethical

Louis Pojman and Roland Puccetti took the position that neocortical brain death was the best definition of death. Many implications resulted from this, including views on assisted death and organ transplant. Would this lead to a slippery slope regarding what death was? Would this lead to an increase in organs available for donation? These are only some of the implications that arose from Pojman and Puccetti’s position. Looking at the neocortical brain death position versus the biologically integrative whole brain position allowed for judgement on which definition had better merit. I will argue that the biological whole brain position is more inconsistent in regards to application. As such, I will take the position of advocating for the

In the case of a minor unable to consent or make decisions (due to a mental condition or conscious state) and the absence of parents or legal guardians, two medical doctor must make all medical decisions on his behalf including cardio pulmonary resuscitation and termination of life support.

No matter the age, everyone should have a plan for when he or she is comatose and unable to make decisions. When there is no living will or medical power of attorney assigned for the patient the spouse and the patient’s family may not see eye to eye on how to go about the situation. The spouse may want to let the patient die and family may think that the patient will come out of their comatose state or vice versa. There was a case known as the Terri Shiavo case that occurred almost eleven years ago. She had no medical power of attorney or living will leaving her life in the hands of her husband, Michael, who thought he knew what was best and her family who thought the same.

Before taking this class I was oblivious to the apparently well-known fact that there are two standards of death. One standard is the cardiopulmonary standard, which is when the heart and lungs cease to function on their own. The second standard is the total brain death standard which is when there is complete and irreversible loss of brain function. There are people who stand in both corners of this argument but most, if not all, stand for only one standard. While the definitions of each standard seems to be clear cut, it is not, as there are some cases in which one standard will not suffice, which we will be discussing in a later paragraph. I will argue that both the

The same central issue arises in those placed on life support. If a person is purely in the mind/brain, then in regards to a patient who is brain dead, withholding essential medical treatment or to even actively stop the body from functioning could never be considered unethical, in fact, it could be considered morally justifiable. If the soul is what makes up the person, then who is to say that the soul leaves the body when the brain stops functioning? The medical professional would then still be morally

This scenario presents various ethical issues that could be argued several ways from HIPPA violations to whether or not this patient has/had the cognitive ability to understand the execution of an advanced directive and Power of Attorney. Advance Directives are put in place for this very reason. It eliminates the need for family members to make a choice in the heat of the moment and also respects the wishes of the person whom it affects directly. Although Mr. E’s hypoxia could affect his ability to think clearly one cannot assume that he has an altered level of consciousness nor the inability to execute an advance

Thesis: I believe that…whole brain death is the best definition of death suitable for the use of organ transplantation.

At any time a person can become incapacitated and unable to speak for themselves. “Cases come before the ethics committees around the country every day because people do not have advance directives in place, even though there was plenty of time and good reasons to engage in advance care planning” (Kottkamp, 2013). In many cases, the lack of advance care planning leads to a tragedy: families dealing not only with the grief of loved ones who are suddenly unable to communicate- and often near death- but also the heart break of trying to figure out who should make healthcare decisions and what those decisions should be (Kottkamp,2013). In most of these cases, this uncertainty could have been prevented with the simple act of executing an advance

In the medical world, we are sometimes placed into situations with an undesirable outcome. The least desirable outcome imaginable to being pronounced dead, or in our scenario, being labeled “brain dead”. Being classified as brain dead, is not an easy diagnosis to be made, and is defined as “irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead.” Throughout the course of assessing the articles provided, we learned about a patient by the name of Jahi McMath who had tonsillectomy performed at the Children’s Hospital Oakland. Upon entering the procedure, the family was told the procedure was considered normal. Unfortunately, approximately thirty minutes after the procedure, Jahi begin to experience

Traditionally death was defined with the heart-lung criterion which referred to cardio-respiratory death. The lower brain is what controls respiration therefore the destruction of the brainstem causes loss of all cardio-respiratory vital signs and so death ensues. In 1981, a new definition arose which was labelled as Whole Brain Death. It is defined as an individual being declared dead, despite continuing functional vital signs. (Pojman, pp. 102) There is no consciousness, no control of brainstem reflexes, and a loss of cognitive functions. The individual’s survival is dependent on artificial mechanisms that are provided by doctors. This newer definition was created due to modern technology being able to revive someone who is cardio-respiratory

The current health situation should be explained in a non-technical way so the patient (if possible) family, and or valid surrogate can understand every aspect. The physician should also help them understand when there is no hope for recovery. Most often the organs are no longer functioning, or there is little to no brain activity; at this point suffering potentially outweighs the probability of recovery. Medical teams most often realize that the focus should be on comfort, rather than extending a dying life. This decision comes with a great deal of uncertainty, and will always be hard, no matter what age of the patient, or the circumstances. Kathryn Kosh, MD explains that, “Ready access to advanced modern technology has changed death from an event to a process… Defying death requires payment [in the form of] pain and discomfort or in an unacceptable decline in the quality of life.” Often times physicians will not prescribe treatment in the first place knowing that this option will not benefit the patient, prolong suffering; and will likely end in termination anyway. Therefore, allowing the nature of the illness or injury to take its own course of action. Another point of interest regarding this topic is that medical teams realize in most cases, that providing an ethical and dignified death can be just as rewarding as administering aggressive measures to save a

After reading your post and many of the colleague in the class, most agree that is not professional to disregard the conversation that the family was having. Although the patient wishes were not to remain on life support and had a document to prove it he also fail to have a proxy to carry one his whishes. The Health Care Proxy is a simple document, legally valid in many states, which allows a person to name someone (an "agent") to make health care decisions their behalf if they are unable to make or communicate those decisions. (Society, 2015).

The need for organ donations creates another ethical dilemma for Emergency Room Physicians. “Obtaining organs from emergency room patients has long been considered off-limits in the United States because of ethical and logistical concerns” (Stein, 2010). The shortage of organs available for transplant has caused many patients die while waiting. A pilot project from the federal government “has begun promoting an alternative that involves surgeons taking organs, within minutes, from patients whose hearts have stopped beating but who have not been declared brain-dead” (Stein, 2010). “The Uniform Determination of Death Act

These questions are difficult for any of us to answer - even more so if we are dealing with a situation in which we may have to answer one or more of these questions. Yet, for some of us, these questions are all too real. If someone is considered to be in a vegetative state and the doctor determines that they are not