ArticleJournal of bioethical inquiry2016
The Case for Reasonable Accommodation of Conscientious Objections to Declarations of Brain Death.
Article in Journal of bioethical inquiry, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 42 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Rationale for revisions to the definition of death and criteria for its determination in Canada.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2023Article
- Public Understandings of the Definition and Determination of Death: A Scoping Review.Transplantation direct · 2022Article
- Revise the Uniform Determination of Death Act to Align the Law With Practice Through Neurorespiratory Criteria.Neurology · 2022Article
- More Than "Spending Time with the Body": The Role of a Family's Grief in Determinations of Brain Death.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2019Article
- Go in Peace: Brain Death, Reasonable Accommodation and Jewish Mourning Rituals.Journal of religion and health · 2019Article
- Re A (A Child) and the United Kingdom Code of Practice for the Diagnosis and Confirmation of Death: Should a Secular Construct of Death Override Religious Values in a Pluralistic Society?HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2018Review
- A Response to the Legitimacy of Brain Death in Islam.Journal of religion and health · 2016Review
- Re-Examining the Origin and Application of Determination of Death by Neurological Criteria (DDNC) : A Commentary on "The Case for Reasonable Accommodation of Conscientious Objections to Declarations of Brain Death" by L. Syd M. Johnson.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2016Article
- Muslim American physicians' views on brain death: Findings from a national survey.Avicenna journal of medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since its inception in 1968, the concept of whole-brain death has been contentious, and four decades on, controversy concerning the validity and coherence of whole-brain death continues unabated. Although whole-brain death is legally recognized and medically entrenched in the United States and elsewhere, there is reasonable disagreement among physicians, philosophers, and the public concerning whether brain death is really equivalent to death as it has been traditionally understood. A handful of states have acknowledged this plurality of viewpoints and enacted "conscience clauses" that require "reasonable accommodation" of religious and moral objections to the determination of death by neurological criteria. This paper argues for the universal adoption of "reasonable accommodation" policies using the New Jersey statute as a model, in light of both the ongoing controversy and the recent case of Jahi McMath, a child whose family raised religious objections to a declaration of brain death. Public policies that accommodate reasonable, divergent viewpoints concerning death provide a practical and compassionate way to resolve those conflicts that are the most urgent, painful, and difficult to reconcile.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.