ArticleNeurocritical care2018
Reconciling the Case of Jahi McMath.
Article in Neurocritical care, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- When does life end? Consensus and controversy in defining death.Monash bioethics review · 2026Article
- Jahi McMath case: A comprehensive and updated narrative.World journal of critical care medicine · 2025Review
- Death as the extinction of the source of value: the constructivist theory of death as an irreversible loss of moral status.Theoretical medicine and bioethics · 2024Article
- Article
- Transparency and Education of Hospital Chaplains About Brain Death: Reply.Neurocritical care · 2021Article
- Requests for somatic support after neurologic death determination: Canadian physician experiences.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2021Article
- Refinements in the Organism as a Whole Rationale for Brain Death.The Linacre quarterly · 2019Article
- [Diagnosis of irreversible loss of brain function ("brain death")-what is new?]Der Nervenarzt · 2019Review
- Response to Lewis A: Reconciling the Case of Jahi Mcmath.Neurocritical care · 2018Article
- Response to Machado et al. re: Jahi McMath.Neurocritical care · 2018Article
- The Legacy of Jahi McMath.Neurocritical care · 2018Article
- Truly Reconciling the Case of Jahi McMath.Neurocritical care · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe case of Jahi McMath has captured the attention of the public, healthcare professionals, and ethicists. Jahi was declared brain dead in late 2013, but her family transferred her to New Jersey to continue organ support. A lengthy legal battle has been ongoing since then. Jahi's family and two neurologists, Drs. Calixto Machado and Alan Shewmon, believe that she is not brain dead. Her family and Dr. Shewmon think that she is capable of following commands, thus making her minimally conscious.
methodsReview of case materials. RESULTS AND
conclusionBecause brain death is an irreversible coma, one of three conclusions must be drawn: 1) Jahi was never dead; 2) Jahi met the criteria for brain death, but she isn't dead now; or 3) Jahi's movements are not purposeful responses, and she has been brain dead since 2013. The possibility that a person who was declared brain dead is now following commands threatens to erode the notion that brain death should be considered legal death. The discordant ideas that Jahi is brain dead and is following commands can only be reconciled if a formal evaluation for determination of death is repeated by reputable examiners.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29923168What 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.