Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41062902›Full record

ReviewNeurocritical care2025

Prioritization of Ethical Themes When Surrogates Object to Technology Removal After Brain Death Determination.

Elena Montag, Matthew P Kirschen, Pamela Nathanson, Wynne Morrison, Evan Fieldston, Jennifer K Walter

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Neurocritical care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Elena MontagDepartment of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Matthew P KirschenDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Pamela NathansonDepartment of Medical Ethics, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Wynne MorrisonDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Evan FieldstonDepartment of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Jennifer K WalterDepartment of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Walterj1@chop.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-0723-2464

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As hospitals revise their policies for brain death/death by neurologic criteria (BD/DNC), they should provide transparent and clear plans for how to handle surrogate requests to continue technology after declaration of death. National guidelines provide little guidance in this matter, and individual institutions should make decisions grounded in an understanding of their local constraints and the ethical values at stake. Ethical arguments exist in favor of and opposed to allowing continuation of technologic support for families who object to BD/DNC. Prioritization of these ethical values influences how institutions handle objections to removal of technologic support after BD/DNC determination. A narrative review of the literature identified six ethical values relevant to institutional responses to surrogate objections: inappropriate treatment, distributive justice, BD/DNC as philosophical or legal death not biological death, dignity and respect, surrogate authority, and medical mistrust. We articulate three potential paths forward an institution can take and the relative prioritization of ethical values in each case. When developing or revising hospital policies on BD/DNC, hospitals must understand the ethical values in tension with any particular approach taken. Hospitals vary in the populations they care for and the resources at their disposal, which may impact prioritization of ethical principles at stake in these decisions. Although some ethical values may not be prioritized, institutions should design systems to honor them to the extent possible given the plurality of beliefs and experiences of the patients for whom we care.

Indexed as

Brain DeathWithholding TreatmentHumansBrain deathDeath by neurological criteriaEnd-of-lifeEthicsFamilyHospital policyRemoval of technologic supportUniform Determination of Death Act

Identifiers

PMID41062902
PMCPMC12647313

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.