ReviewCanadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie2023
Navigating disagreement and conflict in the context of a brain-based definition of death.
Review in Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Themes in the Management of Pediatric Brain Death Contestation: Exploratory Qualitative Work From Multidisciplinary Health Professionals in the United States.Pediatric critical care medicine : a journal of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the World Federation of Pediatric Intensive and Critical Care Societies · 2025Article
- In reply: Brain death is more than technical.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this paper, we discuss situations in which disagreement or conflict arises in the critical care setting in relation to the determination of death by neurologic criteria, including the removal of ventilation and other somatic support. Given the significance of declaring a person dead for all involved, an overarching goal is to resolve disagreement or conflict in ways that are respectful and, if possible, relationship preserving. We describe four different categories of reasons for these disagreements or conflicts: 1) grief, unexpected events, and needing time to process these events; 2) misunderstanding; 3) loss of trust; and 4) religious, spiritual, or philosophical differences. Relevant aspects of the critical care setting are also identified and discussed. We propose several strategies for navigating these situations, appreciating that these may be tailored for a given care context and that multiple strategies may be helpfully used. We recommend that health institutions develop policies that outline the process and steps involved in addressing situations where there is ongoing or escalating conflict. These policies should include input from a broad range of stakeholders, including patients and families, as part of their development and review.
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.