Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T08:28:00.943Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Determination of Death by Neurologic Criteria in the United States: The Case for Revising the Uniform Determination of Death Act

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Ariane Lewis ,
Richard J. Bonnie ,
Thaddeus Pope ,
Leon G. Epstein ,
David M. Greer ,
Matthew P. Kirschen ,
Michael Rubin  and
James A. Russell
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although death by neurologic criteria (brain death) is legally recognized throughout the United States, state laws and clinical practice vary concerning three key issues: (1) the medical standards used to determine death by neurologic criteria, (2) management of family objections before determination of death by neurologic criteria, and (3) management of religious objections to declaration of death by neurologic criteria. The American Academy of Neurology and other medical stakeholder organizations involved in the determination of death by neurologic criteria have undertaken concerted action to address variation in clinical practice in order to ensure the integrity of brain death determination. To complement this effort, state policymakers must revise legislation on the use of neurologic criteria to declare death. We review the legal history and current laws regarding neurologic criteria to declare death and offer proposed revisions to the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) and the rationale for these recommendations.

Type
Symposium Articles
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 47 , Issue S4: Current Topics in Health Law: Papers from the 2019 ASLME Health Law Professors Conference , Winter 2019 , pp. 9 - 24
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

See generally Lewis, A., Cahn-Fuller, K., and Caplan, A., “Shouldn't Dead Be Dead? The Search for a Uniform Definition of Death,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 45, no. 1 (2017): 112-128. See, e.g., Lowry v. Beaumont Health, No. 2:19-CV-13293 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 8, 2019) (Complaint); In re Allen Callaway, No. DG-16-08 (Pondera County Dist. Ct., Mont. Sept. 26, 2016) (Order); In re Mirranda Grace Lawson, No. CL16-2358 (City of Richmond Circuit Court, Va. June 10, 2016) (Order); Winkfield v. California, No. 4:15-06042 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2015) (Complaint); In re Guardianship of Hailu, 361 P.3d 524 (Nev. 2015); Stinson v. Children's Hospital Los Angeles, No. BS164387 (Los Angeles Sup. Ct., Cal. Aug. 25, 2016) (Order); Shively vs. Wesley Medical Center No. 06-96650-A (Kan. App. 2006); Pierce v. Loma Linda University Medical Center, No. CIV-DS-1608931 (San Bernardino County Sup. Ct., Cal. June 7, 2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The American Academy of Neurology (AAN) is an international professional association of more than 34,000 neurologists and neuroscience professionals dedicated to promoting the highest quality patient-centered neurologic care. See <https://www.aan.com> (last visited October 23, 2019).+(last+visited+October+23,+2019).>Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Lewis, A., Bernat, J.L., Blosser, S., et al., “An Interdisciplinary Response to Contemporary Concerns about Brain Death Determination,” Neurology 90, no. 9 (2018): 423-426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uniform Determination of Death Act, 12A Uniform Laws Annotated 777 (2008), also available at <http://www.uniformlaws.org> (last visited October 25, 2019). Most states adopted the UDDA between 1981 and 1990.+(last+visited+October+25,+2019).+Most+states+adopted+the+UDDA+between+1981+and+1990.>Google Scholar
See supra note 1 and infra notes 73-73, 81, 92, 100-04, 109, 112 (showing how litigation has destabilized brain death). Throughout this document, we use the term “criteria” to broadly refer to the organ system whose failure has led to declaration of death (i.e. neurologic criteria vs. cardiopulmonary criteria) and we use the term “standards” to refer to the technical medical requirements for declaration of death.Google Scholar
Ad Hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School to Examine the Definition of Brain Death, “A Definition of Irreversible Coma,” JAMA 205, no. 6 (1968): 337-340; Lewis, A. and Scheyer, O., “Legal Objections to Use of Neurologic Criteria to Declare Death in the United States: 1968-2017,” Chest 155, no. 6 (2019): 1234-1245.Google Scholar
But see infra Section III (showing variability in the precise language used).Google Scholar
Bernat, J.L., “The Definition and Criterion of Death,” Handbook of Clinical Neurology 118 (2013): 419-435, at 419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mollaret, P. and Goulon, M., “Le Coma Depassé,” Review Neurology 101 (1959): 3-15.Google Scholar
See Ad Hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School, supra note 8.Google Scholar
Ryan, P.L., “The Uniform Determination of Death Act: An Effective Solution to the Problem of Defining Death,” Washington and Lee Law Review 39 (1982): 1511-1531, 1514 (“The UAGA, adopted in all states, fails to specify the appropriate standards for determining the death of prospective organ donors.”).Google Scholar
See Ad Hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School, supra note 8.Google Scholar
McCabe, J.M., “The New Determination of Death Act,” American Bar Association Journal 67 (1981): 1476-1478.Google Scholar
Tucker v. Lower, No. 2831 (Richmond, Va., L & Eq. Ct., May 23, 1972); Ryan, supra note 13, at note 28; Capron, A.M. and Kass, L.R., “A Statutory Definition of the Standards for Determining Human Death: An Appraisal and a Proposal,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 121 (1972): 87-118, at 88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research, Defining Death: Medical, Legal, and Ethical Issues in the Determination of Death (U.S.G.P.O. July 1981): at 6-7; Capron and Kass, supra note 16, at 91-95.Google Scholar
President's Commission, supra note 17, at 6.Google Scholar
Id., at 45-46.Google Scholar
O'Hara, P.J., “Medical-Legal Agreement on Brain Death: An Assessment of the Uniform Determination of Death Act,” Journal of Contemporary Law 8 (1982): 97-122, note 22 (including Maryland, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Virginia).Google Scholar
Veith, F.J., “Brain Death: I. A Status Report of Medical and Ethical Considerations,” JAMA 238 (1977): 1651-1655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
President's Commission, supra note 17, at 62-68.Google Scholar
Nipper, B., “Legislating Death: A Review and Proposed Refinement of the Uniform Determination of Death Act,” Houston Journal of Health Law & Policy 17 (2017): 429-462, at 442.Google Scholar
Ryan, supra note 13, at notes 100, 106-107.Google Scholar
Id., at note 58.Google Scholar
Id., at note 73.Google Scholar
Calling the same person “dead” for one purpose but “alive” for another would engender nothing but confusion. Therefore, we need a precise time of death, “a single set of standards … appropriate for all legal purposes.” President's Commission at 10, 60; Ryan, supra note 13, at note 50; O'Hara, supra note 20, at notes 92-96.Google Scholar
UDDA, supra note 6, at prefatory note.Google Scholar
President's Commission, supra note 17, at 51.Google Scholar
Pub. L. No. 95-622 § 1802(a)(1)(B), 92 Stat. 3439 (1978), codified at 42 USC 300u.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
President's Commission, supra note 17.Google Scholar
McCabe, supra note 15, at 1476.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, J.L., “Wanted Dead and/or Alive: Choosing among the Not-So-Uniform Statutory Definitions of Death,” University of Miami Law Review 61 (2007): 871-930, 876.Google Scholar
President's Commission, supra note 17, at 52. Some commentators argue that state-to-state uniformity has failed and we should take a federal approach. See, e.g., Nipper, supra note 23, at 455-456.Google Scholar
President's Commission, supra note 17, at 8, 51-53.Google Scholar
McCabe, supra note 15.Google Scholar
President's Commission, supra note 17, at 72.Google Scholar
Id., at 50.Google Scholar
Id., at 8.Google Scholar
Capron and Kass, supra note 17, at 96-97.Google Scholar
President's Commission, supra note 17, at 7.Google Scholar
Id., at 60; Abram, M.B., “The Need for Uniform Law on the Determination of Death,” New York Law School Law Review 27 (1982): 1187-1205, at 1201.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, supra note 34, at 871.Google Scholar
Ryan, supra note 13, at note 15 (including organ, homicide, mourning and rituals, resect, medical malpractice, property, benefits).Google Scholar
President's Commission, supra note 17, at 60.Google Scholar
Id., at 7-8.Google Scholar
Choi, E., Fredland, V., Zachodni, C., and Lammers, J.E., “Brain Death Revisited: The Case for a National Standard,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 36, no. 4 (2008): 824-836, at 824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id., at 831-832.Google Scholar
Id., at 830; President's Commission, supra note 17, at 49 (discussing concerns with “public confusion” and “professionals’ doubts” from slow uneven judicial revision of the common law).Google Scholar
Downie, J., Kutcher, M., Rajotte, C., and Shea, A., “Eligibility for Organ Donation: A Medico-Legal Perspective on Defining and Determining Death,” Canadian Journal of Anesthesia 56 (2009): 851-863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
President's Commission, supra note 17, at 55-56 (citing Capron and Kass).Google Scholar
Id., at 46.Google Scholar
Id., at 50.Google Scholar
See Abram, supra note 43, at 1197; President's Commission, supra note 17, at 50.Google Scholar
In settling on “accepted medical standards” the Commission rejected the term in the prior uniform act, “reasonable medical standards,” because it was unclear “whose reasonableness” counts. But the UDDA faces the same problem. It is unclear by whom the standards must be accepted. President's Commission, supra note 17, at 78-79.Google Scholar
President's Commission, supra note 17, at 57.Google Scholar
Id., at 57.Google Scholar
Id., at 30. Ryan, supra note 13, at notes 94-95. The AMA opposed the model because of this. Still other versions were being proposed at this time. Bernat, J.L., Culver, C.M., and Gert, B., “On the Definition and Criterion of Death,” Annals of Internal Medicine 94 (1981): 389-394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
President's Commission, supra note 17, at 57. The criteria were deliberately vague and general to allow the development of medical techniques. State v. Shaffer, 624 P.2d 440, 447 (Kan. 1981).Google Scholar
Nipper, supra note 23, at 442.Google Scholar
President's Commission, supra note 17, at 80 (citing A.M. Capron, “Legal Definition of Death,” New York Academy of Sciences 315 (1978): 349-362, at 356).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
President's Commission, supra note 17, at 81.Google Scholar
See Mollaret and Goulon, supra note 11; see Ad Hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School, supra note 8; President's Commission, supra note 17.Google Scholar
In re Welfare of Bowman, 617 P.2d 731 (Wash. 1980); In re Haymer, 450 N.E.2d 940 (Ill. App. 1983); 10 N.Y.C.R.R. § 400.16; Ala. Code § 22-31-1; Alaska Stat. § 09.68.120; Ark. Code § 20-17-101; Cal. Health & Safety Code § 7180; Colo. Rev. Stat. § 12-36-136; Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-504a; Del. Code. tit. 24, § 1760; Fla. Stat. § 765.511; Ga. Code. Ann. § 31-10-16; Haw. Rev. Stat. § 327C-1; Idaho Code Ann. § 54-1819; Ind. Code § 1-1-4-3; Iowa Code § 702.8; Kan. Stat. Ann. § 77-205; Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 446.400; La. Stat. Ann. § 9:111; Me. Stat. tit. 22, § 2811; Md. Code, Com. Law § 5–202; Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 190B, § 1-107; Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.1033; Minn. Stat. § 145.135; Miss. Code Ann. § 41-36-3; Mo. Rev. Stat. § 194.005; Mont. Code Ann. § 50-22-101; Neb. Rev. Stat. § 71-7202; Nev. Rev. Stat. § 451.007; N.J. Rev. Stat. § 26:6A; N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 141-D:2; N.M. Stat. § 12-2-4; N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-323; N.D. Cent. Code § 23-06.3-01; Ohio Rev. Code § 2108.40; Okla. Stat. tit. 63, § 3122; Or. Rev. Stat. § 112.582; 35 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 10203; 23 R.I. Gen. Laws § 23-4-26; S.C. Code Ann. § 44-43-460; S.D. Codified Laws § 34-25-18.1; Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-3-501; Tex. Health & Safety Code § 671.001; Utah Code § 26-34-2; Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 18, § 5218; Va. Code Ann. § 54.1-2972; W. Va. Code § 16-10-01; Wis. Stat. Ann. § 146.71; Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 35-19-101; D.C. Code § 7–601.Google Scholar
See Lewis, Cahn-Fuller, and Caplan supra note 1.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 14-1107; N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-323.Google Scholar
In re Haymer, 450 N.E.2d 940 (Ill. App. 1983); Iowa Code § 702.8; La. Stat. Ann. § 9:111; N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-323; Tex. Health & Safety Code § 671.001.Google Scholar
Wijdicks, E.F.M., Varelas, P.N., Gronseth, G.S., and Greer, D.M., “Evidence-Based Guideline Update: Determining Brain Death in Adults: Report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology,” Neurology 74, no. 23 (2010): 1911-1918; Nakagawa, T.A., Ashwal, S., Mathur, M., and Mysore, M., “Committee for Determination of Brain Death in Infants and Children. Guidelines for the Determination of Brain Death in Infants and Children: An Update of the 1987 Task Force Recommendations-Executive Summary,” Annals of Neurology 71, no. 4 (2012): 573-585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shah, V.R., “Aggressive Management of Multiorgan Donor,” Transplantation Proceedings 40 (2008): 1087-1090; Bronheim, A.M, “Management of the Organ Donor,” Seminars in Cardiothoracic Vascular Anesthesia 2 (1998): 100-105; Fisher, R.A. and Alexander, J.W., “Management of the Multiple Organ Donor,” Clinical Transplantation 6 (1992): 328-335; Ali, M.J., “Essentials of Organ Donor Problems and Their Management,” Anesthesiology Clinics of North America 12 (1994): 655-671; Wong, J., Tan, H.L., and Goh, J.P.S., “Management of the Brain Dead Organ Donor,” Trends in Anesthesia and Critical Care 13 (2017): 6-12; Zambergs, K. and Vyas, H., “Management of Potential Organ Donor,” Paediatrics and Child Health 25 (2015): 234-238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalle Ave, A.L. and Bernat, J.L., “Inconsistencies between the Criterion and Tests for Brain Death,” Journal of Intensive Care Medicine (2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winkfield v. California, No. 4:15-06042 (N.D. Cal. 2015).Google Scholar
Winkfield v. Rosen, No. RG15760730 (Alameda County Sup. Ct., Cal. Dec. 22, 2017) (Declaration of D. Alan Shewmon, filed with Plaintiffs' Motion to Bifurcate the Issue of Whether AAN and AAP Guidelines Meet the Statutory Definition of “Dead” Under the Uniform Determination of Death Act).Google Scholar
See President's Commission supra note 17.Google Scholar
In re Haymer, 450 N.E.2d 940 (Ill. App. 1983); Fla. Stat. § 765.511; Haw. Rev. Stat. § 327C-1; Iowa Code § 702.8; Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 446.400; La. Stat. Ann. § 9:111; Md. Code, Com. Law § 5–202; Minn. Stat. § 145.135; Mo. Rev. Stat. § 194.005; N.J. Rev. Stat. § 26:6A; N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-323; Tex. Health & Safety Code § 671.001; Va. Code Ann. § 54.1-2972; Ga. Code. Ann. § 31-10-16.Google Scholar
Ga. Code. Ann. § 31-10-16.Google Scholar
In re Haymer, 450 N.E.2d 940 (Ill. App. 1983); Fla. Stat. § 765.511; Haw. Rev. Stat. § 327C-1; Iowa Code § 702.8; Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 446.400; La. Stat. Ann. § 9:111; Md. Code, Com. Law § 5–202; Minn. Stat. § 145.135; Mo. Rev. Stat. § 194.005; N.J. Rev. Stat. § 26:6A; N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-323; Tex. Health & Safety Code § 671.001; Va. Code Ann. § 54.1-2972; Ga. Code. Ann. § 31-10-16.Google Scholar
See supra Section II.E.Google Scholar
See President's Commission, supra note 17.Google Scholar
In re Guardianship of Hailu, 361 P.3d 524 (Nev. 2015).Google Scholar
The Harvard standard and the AAN standard are similar, but not identical. One key difference between them is that the Harvard standard required that an electroencephalogram demonstrate no brain activity, whereas the AAN standard is a clinical determination unless a portion of the clinical determination cannot be performed. Notably, after publication of the Harvard standard, the Chair of the ad hoc committee who authored the standard reported that the committee did not feel strongly about the need for an electroencephalogram to determine brain death. Nonetheless, because this test was included in the Harvard standard, the Court remanded for evidentiary findings to clarify whether the Harvard or the AAN standard represented the accepted medical standard. See Lewis, Cahn-Fuller, and Caplan, supra note 1.Google Scholar
Lewis, Bernat, Blosser, et al., supra note 5.Google Scholar
AAN, supra note 2.Google Scholar
Lewis, Bernat, Blosser, et al., supra note 5.Google Scholar
An Act Relating to the Determination of Death, Nev. A.B. 424 (2017), enacted as 2017 Nevada Acts Ch. 315, codified at Nev. Rev. Stat. § 451.007.Google Scholar
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 451.007. See also Section IV.B, infra (discussing constitutionaliy of this formulation).Google Scholar
N.J. Admin. Code § 3:35-6A.4.Google Scholar
Greer, D.M., Wang, H.H., Robinson, J.D., Varelas, P.N., Henderson, G.V., and Wijdicks, E.F.M., “Variability of Brain Death Policies in the United States,” JAMA Neurology 73, no. 2 (2016): 213-218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, Bernat, Blosser, et al., supra note 5.Google Scholar
Lewis, A., Adams, N., Varelas, P., Greer, D., and Caplan, A., “Organ Support after Death by Neurologic Criteria: Results of a Survey of US Neurologists,” Neurology 87, no. 8 (2016): 827-834; Lewis, A., Adams, N., Chopra, A., and Kirschen, M., “Organ Support after Death by Neurologic Criteria in Pediatric Patients,” Critical Care Medicine 45, no. 9 (2017): e916-24; Lewis, A. and Greer, D., “POINT: Should Informed Consent Be Required for Apnea Testing in Patients with Suspected Brain Death? No,” Chest 152, no. 4 (2017): 700-702; Lewis, A. and Greer, D., “Rebuttal From Drs Lewis and Greer,” Chest 152, no. 4 (2017): 700-702; Truog, R.D. and Tasker, R.C., “Counterpoint: “Should Informed Consent Be Required for Apnea Testing in Patients with Suspected Brain Death? Yes,” Chest 152, no. 4 (2017): 702-704; Truog, R.D. and Tasker, R.C., “Rebuttal from Drs Truog and Tasker,” Chest 152, no. 4 (2017): 705-706.Google Scholar
See, e.g., In re Allen Callaway, No. DG-16-08 (Pondera County, Mont. 2016); In re Mirranda Grace Lawson, No. CL16-2358 (City of Richmond Circuit Court, Va. 2016); Winkfield v. California, No. 4:15-06042 (N.D. Cal. 2015); In re Guardianship of Hailu, 361 P.3d 524 (Nev. 2015); Stinson v. Children's Hospital Los Angeles, No. BS164387 (Los Angeles Sup. Ct., Cal. 2016); Pierce v. Loma Linda University Medical Center, No. CIV-DS-1608931 (San Bernardino County Sup. Ct., Cal. 2016); Shively v. Wesley Medical Center, No. 06-96650-A (Kan. App. 2006).Google Scholar
President's Commission, supra note 17; see also supra Section II.F.Google Scholar
Rady, M.Y. and Verheijde, J.L., “The Clinical Determination of Brain Death: Practice Limitations,” European Journal of Neurology 22, no. 12 (2015); e85-e85; Tibballs, J., “A Critique of the Apneic Oxygenation Test for the Diagnosis of Brain Death,” Pediatric Critical Care Medicine 11, no. 4 (2010): 475-478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, Adams, Chopra, and Kirschen, supra note 91; Lewis, Adams, Varelas, Greer, and Caplan, supra note 91.Google Scholar
Lewis, A., Varelas, P., and Greer, D., “Prolonging Support after Brain Death: When Families Ask for More,” Neurocritical Care 24, no. 3 (2016): 481-487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10 N.Y.C.R.R. § 400.16(d).Google Scholar
New York State Department of Health and New York State Task Force on Life and the Law. Guidelines for Determining Brain Death (Nov. 2011), available at <https://www.health.ny.gov/professionals/hospital_administrator/letters/2011/brain_death_guidelines.htm> (last visited October 28, 2019). A new trial court decision suggests that New York hospitals have less discretion than anticipated on what constitutes reasonable accommodation. Nakar v. New York Presbyterian Hospital, No. 1780/2017 (Kings County Supreme Court, NY Jan. 15, 2019).+(last+visited+October+28,+2019).+A+new+trial+court+decision+suggests+that+New+York+hospitals+have+less+discretion+than+anticipated+on+what+constitutes+reasonable+accommodation.+Nakar+v.+New+York+Presbyterian+Hospital,+No.+1780/2017+(Kings+County+Supreme+Court,+NY+Jan.+15,+2019).>Google Scholar
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 451.007.Google Scholar
In re Mirranda Grace Lawson, No. CL16-2358 (City of Richmond Circuit Court, Va. 2016); see also Lewis, Cahn-Fuller, and Caplan, supra note 1.Google Scholar
In re A.C., No. DG-16-08 (Pondera County Dist. Ct., Mont. Sept. 23, 2016).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Stinson v. Children's Hospital Los Angeles, No. BS164387 (Los Angeles Sup. Ct., Cal. 2016); Pierce v. Loma Linda University Medical Center, No. CIV-DS-1608931 (San Bernardino County Sup. Ct., Cal. 2016); Shively v. Wesley Medical Center, No. 06-96650-A (Kan. App. 2006). See also K. Durbin, “Monroe Co. Parents Proposing ‘Bobby's Law’ in Honor of Son Taken Off Life Support,” The Blade (Dec. 2, 2019).Google Scholar
See supra Section II.F.; President's Commission, sup; ra note 17.Google Scholar
Lewis, N. Adams Chopra, A., and Kirschen, M., supra note 91; Lewis, Adams, Varelas, Greer, and Caplan, “Organ Support after Death by Neurologic Criteria: Results of a Survey of US Neurologists,” Neurology 87, no. 8 (2016): 827-834; Lewis, Varelas, and Greer, supra note 96; 10 N.Y.C.R.R. § 400.16; N.J. Rev. Stat. § 26:6A; Cal. Health & Safety Code § 1254.4; 210 Ill. Comp. Stat. § 85/6.24; In re Allen Callaway, No. DG-16-08 (Pondera County, Mont. 2016); In re Mirranda Grace Lawson, No. CL16-2358 (City of Richmond Circuit Court, Va. 2016); McMath vs. California, No. 4:15-06042 (N.D. Cal. 2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
N.J. Rev. Stat. § 26:6A; N.J. Admin. § 13:35-6A.6.Google Scholar
210 Ill. Comp. Stat. § 85/6.24.Google Scholar
10 N.Y.C.R.R. § 400.16; N.J. Rev. Stat. § 26:6A; Cal. Health & Safety Code § 1254.4; 210 Ill. Comp. Stat. § 85/6.24.Google Scholar
10 N.Y.C.R.R. § 400.16; Cal. Health & Safety Code § 1254.4 (also requiring accommondation of non-religious objections).Google Scholar
But cf. Nakar v. New York Presbyterian Hospital, No. 1780/2017 (Kings County Supreme Court, NY Jan. 15, 2019).Google Scholar
Lewis, Cahn-Fuller, and Caplan, supra note 1.Google Scholar
Vazquez, J., “13-Year-Old Jahi McMath Moved to New Jersey Hospital, Lawyer Says Condition Improving,” CBS News (San Francisco), June 18, 2013; Mozumder, S.G., “Mother of NJ Teen Declared Brain-Dead Fights to Keep Him on Life Support,” India Abroad, June 6, 2018; Sanchez, R., “California Family Given More Time, Can Keep Son on Ventilator,” CNN, June 12, 2016.Google Scholar
Vazquez, supra note 111. The families in several Philadelphia cases recently tried to transfer the patients across the river to New Jersey. See, e.g., In re Jaden Auyeung, No. 681-MI-2018 (Philadelphia Orphans Court 2018); Banerjee v. CHOP, No. 18-2571 (E.D. Pa. 2018).Google Scholar
Lewis, Adams, Chopra, and Kirschen, supra note 91; Lewis, Adams, Varelas, Greer, and Caplan, supra note 91.Google Scholar
Lewis, Adams, Chopra, and Kirschen, supra note 91; Lewis, Adams, Varelas, Greer, and Caplan, supra note 91; Lewis, Varelas, and Greer, supra note 96.Google Scholar
Lewis, Varelas, Greer, supra note 96.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Lewis, Adams, Chopra, Kirschen, supra note 96; Lewis, Adams, Varelas, Greer, and Caplan, supra note 91.Google Scholar
N.J. Stat. Ann. § 26:6A-7.Google Scholar
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 451.007.Google Scholar
ADD cites for these activitiesGoogle Scholar
Wijdicks, Varelas, Gronseth, Greer, supra note 70; Nakagawa, Ashwal, Mathur, Mysore, supra note 70; Lewis, Bernat, Blosser, et al., supra note 5; President's Commission, supra note 17.Google Scholar
Shah, supra note 71; Bronheim, supra note 122; Fisher and Alexander, supra note 41; Ali, supra note 71; Wong, Tan, Goh, supra note 71; Zambergs and Vyas, supra note 71.Google Scholar
President's Commission, supra note 17.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See Dalle Ave and Bernat, supra note 72; supra notes 73-74.Google Scholar
But cf. In re Guardianship of Hailu, 361 P.3d 524 (Nev. 2015) (allowed to advance to trial on this question); McMath (same).Google Scholar
President's Commission, supra note 117.Google Scholar
Lewis, Bernat, Blosser, et al., supra note 5. However, despite acceptance of these standards, it is worth noting variability in institutional standards persists. See Greer, Wang, Robinson, Varelas, Henderson, Wijdicks, supra note 89.Google Scholar
In re Guardianship of Hailu, 361 P.3d 524 (Nev. 2015); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 451.007; Greer, Wang, Robinson, Varelas, Henderson, Wijdicks, supra note 89; McMath v. California, No. 4:15-06042 (N.D. Cal. 2015).Google Scholar
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 451.007.Google Scholar
Mason's Manual of Legislative Procedure §§ 51 & 518 (2010 Edition); Arkansas Bureau of Legislative Research, Legislative Drafting Manual § 4.5 (2010) (“If the bill adopts … the standards or manual of a private entity, avoid adopting future revisions of the document referenced. If future changes are included in the incorporation by reference, a delegation of authority has occurred.”); Washington State Office of the Code Reviser Statute Law Committee, Bill Drafting Guide 37 (2019).Google Scholar
Oregon Legislative Counsel Committee, Bill Drafting Manual §§ 8.14-8.16 (2018 ed.).Google Scholar
Cf. Haw. Rev. Code s 327C-1(e) (requiring the Director of Health to periodically convene a committee to review the UDDA).Google Scholar
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 451.007.Google Scholar
10 N.Y.C.R.R. § 400.16(d). New York State Department of Health and New York State Task Force on Life and the Law. Guidelines for Determining Brain Death (Nov. 2011), available at <https://www.health.ny.gov/professionals/hospital_administrator/letters/2011/brain_death_guidelines.htm> (last visited October 28, 2019).+(last+visited+October+28,+2019).>Google Scholar
President's Commission, supra note 17.Google Scholar
Lewis, Adams, Chopra, and Kirschen, supra note 91; Lewis, Adams, Varelas, Greer, and Caplan, supra note 91; Lewis, Varelas, and Greer, supra note 96; 10 N.Y.C.R.R. § 400.16; N.J. Rev. Stat. § 26:6A; Cal. Health & Safety Code § 1254.4; 210 Ill. Comp. Stat. § 85/6.24; In re Allen Callaway, No. DG-16-08 (Pondera County, Mont. 2016); In re Mirranda Grace Lawson, No. CL16-2358 (City of Richmond Circuit Court, Va. 2016); McMath vs. California, 2015. No. 3:15-06042 N.D. Cal.Google Scholar
N.J. Rev. Stat. § 26:6A.Google Scholar
10 N.Y.C.R.R. § 400.16; Cal. Health & Safety Code §1254.4.Google Scholar
210 Ill. Comp. Stat. § 85/6.24.Google Scholar
In re Long Island Jewish Medical Center. 641 N.Y.S.2d 989 (Queens County Supreme Court, NY Feb. 28, 1996); Flamm, A.L., Smith, M.L., and Mayer, P.A., “Family Members' Requests to Extend Physiologic Support after Declaration of Brain Death: A Case Series Analysis and Proposed Guidelines for Clinical Management,” Journal of Clinical Ethics 25 (2014): 222-237; Johnson, L.S.M., “The Case for Reasonable Accommodation of Conscientious Objections to Declarations of Brain Death,” Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 13, no. 1(2016): 1-5-15; Kahn, P.A., “Bioethics, Religion, and Public Policy: Intersections, Interactions, and Solutions,” Journal of Religion and Health 55 (2016): 1546-1560; Luce, J.M., “The Uncommon Case of Jahi McMath,” Chest 147 (2015): 1144-1151; Bosek, M.S., Anderson, J.A., Vernaglia, L.W., Morrigan, S.P., and Bard, T.R., “Refusal of Brain Death Diagnosis,” JONAS Healthcare Law Ethics & Regulation 9 (2007): 87-94; Smith, M.L. and Flamm, A.L., “Accommodating Religious Beliefs in the ICU: A Narrative Account of a Disputed Death,” Narrative Inquiries in Bioethics 1 (2011): 55-64; Berner, D. and Gaeta, S., “Religion Based Non-Acceptance of Brain Death, an End-of-Life Ethical Dilemma,” Critical Care Medicine 40 (2012): 304; Olick, R.S., Braun, E.A., and Potash, J., “Accommodating Religious and Moral Objections to Neurological Death,” Journal of Clinical Ethics 20 (2009): 183-191.Google Scholar
Fonseca v. California, No. 17-17153 (9th Cir. Jan. 14, 2019) (oral argument).Google Scholar