ArticleThe Linacre quarterly2016
Brain death and true patient care.
Article in The Linacre quarterly, 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.
- When does life end? Consensus and controversy in defining death.Monash bioethics review · 2026Article
- Exploring the Dynamics: A Comprehensive Scoping Review of Factors Influencing Organ Donation Decisions: A Scoping Review.Iranian journal of public health · 2025Review
- Current Approaches in the Allocation of Liver Transplantation.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Review
- Deceased Organ Transplantation in Bangladesh: The Dynamics of Bioethics, Religion and Culture.HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2022Article
- Does the Uniform Determination of Death Act Need to Be Revised?The Linacre quarterly · 2020Article
- Evolution of the Criteria of "Brain Death": A Critical Analysis Based on Scientific Realism and Christian Anthropology.The Linacre quarterly · 2019Article
- Humility before New Scientific Evidence: We No Longer Have Moral Certainty that "Brain Death" Is True Death.The Linacre quarterly · 2019Article
- [Diagnosis of irreversible loss of brain function ("brain death")-what is new?]Der Nervenarzt · 2019Review
- Pope John Paul II and the neurological standard for the determination of death: A critical analysis of his address to the Transplantation Society.The Linacre quarterly · 2017Article
- The anatomy of death.Journal of craniovertebral junction & spineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The "brain death" standard as a criterion of death is closely associated with the need for transplantable organs from heart-beating donors. Are all of these potential donors really dead, or does the documented evidence of patients destined for organ harvesting who improve, or even recover to live normal lives, call into question the premise underlying "brain death"? The aim of this paper is to re-examine the notion of "brain death," especially its clinical test-criteria, in light of a broad framework, including medical knowledge in the field of neuro-intensive care and the traditional ethics of the medical profession. I will argue that both the empirical medical evidence and the ethics of the doctor-patient relationship point to an alternative approach toward the severely comatose patient (potential brain-dead donor).
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.