UT The Changes to USF Brain Death Committee Standards Discussion

How death has been defined has changed over time, the materials in the course discuss.  Please imagine yourself as part of the new USF Brain Death Committee charged to reevaluate Brain Death.  The committee has been convened to reassess the standard of definition for death originally developed by the Harvard Criteria and develop a new policy that defines Brain Death or reaffirms the current standard definition. Your post is the position that would you bring to the committee’s discussion before the group votes. 

Brain Death

The USF Brain Death Committee has three policy approaches under consideration: 

1. Will you retain the current standard?
2. Will you change the definition and Eliminate Brain Death?
3. Will you change the definition so that Death equals “loss of higher consciousness”?

You will want to review the Harvard Criteria, all the readings for Determining Death, Organ Donation, and Withdrawal of Treatment and Consent as you consider which approach you will adopt as your position for your statement to the Committee.

Discussion Post

The discussion post has two key parts, the choice of the policy approach from the three above that informs your position and then a section that clearly identifies the ethical principle prioritized in your position.

Section 1:

Please clearly choose one of the following questions as you formulate your position.

1. Will you retain the current standard?

• Would you make any modifications to the standard in practice? If so, what are they are and why?

1. Will youchange the definition and Eliminate Brain Death?

• How would you change the definition and why? 

1. Will youchange the definition so that Death equals “loss of higher consciousness”?

• What would a change in the definition mean to patients in a Persistent Vegetative State (PVS) and newborns with anencephaly?

Section 2:

When discussing the ethical issue, please consider the impact with respect to the following principles. Please choose 1 ethical issue to address; you do not need to address all provided below. 

• Beneficence: Is your obligation to one patient, or is your obligation to society?
• Nonmaleficence: Would one patient be harmed, or would society be harmed?
• Allocation and justice: What impact would your policy have on organ transplantation or on medical care costs and availability of scare resources?
• Autonomy: What would patients want?  How would they want to live, die, and be declared dead?
• Trust and transparency: Patients should trust in the medical profession and believe in the honesty of clinical judgments.  How does your policy impact trust and transparency?