Abstract:
The procedure of diagnosing brain death is a very complex and controversial area throughout the world, and brain death remains a significant issue that the criteria for it in different jurisdictions climb up to various heights. This post offers a revision to the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA), which aims to remove inconsistencies and consider the new emerging medical evidence, particularly perfusion studies’ role in the declaration of brain death. Currently, the UDDA mainly employs whole-brain death criteria in most states. Those wrong criteria may need to be compatible with the current medical knowledge. The problem relies on the unavailability of clearly designed norms that cover the use of perfusion studies, which measure the blood flow in the brain. This ultimately creates uncertainty and leads to disagreements when trying to establish brain death. By infusing the ethical principles of principlism, particularly in autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice, this proposal puts us in the position to recommend a complete perception to determine brain death safely. Thus, by implementing xenotransplantation studies into guidelines and DDA guidelines, clinicians can lift the accuracy of inaccuracy in adherence to patient autonomy and bed beneficence by contributing to urgent organ donation.
Moreover, considering the standardization of brain death criteria on a consensus level facilitates justice through the assurance of a fair and equitable scheme in medical procedures. Finally, this proposal serves as an essential example of the fact that an intersectional approach must be taken during the development of the UDAA framework by taking into account the situations of different religions and cultures, for example, the question in the New Jersey bill. By embracing multiple values, healthcare policies signal individual freedom while involving ethical guidelines as they were the right thing to do in the first place. With the changing landscape of medical technologies and moral issues, adopting perfusion studies, including the UDDA, will be an ethical step toward new standards for confirming brain death investigations. The main rationale developed is to make it look like a catalyst that will start a national dialogue among the leaders, health experts, and ethics guardians for the possibility of securing possible options for resolving the dilemma of end-of-life care and organ donation.
Clinical Ethics Policy Paper on Brain Death
Briefly describe the Policy
The prognosis of death by brain (BD) is one of the most complicated and important matters in a clinical setting, with significant implications for end-of-life decisions, organ donation, and health policy—the current suggestions for determining brain death can vary around the world, and productive practices can also be inconsistent. New Jersey, having its away aerobic breathing criteria in the will of the death laws, stands out as the exception. This statute provides a religious exemption that influences death declaration in the body according to a man or woman’s perspective. It will spotlight that a case for standardizing a more defined and understood brain death process should be considered.
Proposed Revision in UDDA Guidelines:
The proposed revision within the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) recommendations indicates incorporating perfusion research into brain death criteria to decorate diagnostic accuracy and reliability. By transferring past the constraints of depending entirely on references to whole-brain death, this approach aims to provide a complete evaluation of brain features ( Thenuwara et al., 2023). Perfusion investigations, for instance, scanning or MR angiography, make available a detailed understanding of brain perfusion and can be adopted for better evaluation in medical institutions (Elam et al., 2021). Such an alteration to a more integrated approach is now directed at the fairness of contemporary standards and stresses of brain flow insufficiency in brain death diagnosis.
The rework in the capacity accompanying the debate is that the legal definition of brain death still mismatches with the practical challenges faced in diagnosing it accurately. Alternative ways of dealing with these mismatches involve upgrading standards and tests, changing the Uniform Determination of Death Act alongside medical exercise, or tolerating the inherent drawbacks in current diagnostic tests for brain death (Choong, 2022). These debates reinforce the complexity of identifying and diagnosing brain death, thus the need to refine the standards that fulfill these purposes to preserve both medical accuracy and the ethical concerns about end-of-life choices.
Ethical Framework of Principlism:
In advocating for changes in UDDA tips, the moral framework of principlism performs a critical function. Principlism, a foundational ethical framework in biomedical ethics, encompasses autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice (Sussman, 2023) in advocating for adjustments within the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) suggestions. Principlism is pivotal in emphasizing character autonomy in giving up-of-existence selections (Consolo, 2023). Selling beneficence through organ donation practices, averting harm in figuring out death standards (Siraj,2022). We also ensure truthful aid allocation and the right of entry to care. This ethical framework affords a stable basis for comparing and guiding revisions in brain death standards, ultimately enhancing patient care and aligning healthcare practices with moral standards.
During times of crisis, together with healthcare emergencies, a shift from deontological to utilitarian principlism occurs. Utilitarian principlism is a specialty that maximizes average societal benefit over a man’s or woman’s hobbies, emphasizing justice and populace health (Zheng et al., 2022). This transition allows healthcare companies to conform to their moral decision-making techniques to prioritize the more excellent and appropriate while keeping moral ideas centred. By adopting Utilitarian Principlism as a framework for crisis healthcare ethics, clinicians can navigate challenging conditions by balancing autonomy principles (Skowronski et al., 2021). And nonmaleficence, beneficence, and justice within broader societal needs and public health priorities.
Therefore, revising the UDDA recommendations to include perfusion research and aligning them with moral concepts, which include principlism, can lead to a more standardized, reliable, and ethically sound technique for determining brain death. This proposed revision’s objectives are to cope with the cutting-edge obstacles and inconsistencies in brain death of life standards while appreciating individual autonomy, promoting goodwill through organ donation practices, upholding nonmaleficence in figuring out death standards and ensuring justice in aid allocation and entry to care.
Briefly describe why the Policy is needed. What ethical or theoretical principles is it meant to support?
Brain death determination is a critical medical decision which has a direct implication in the end-of-life decisions and principles of organ donation.Unevenness across regions regarding brain death criteria and the fact that medical devices are being invented all the time makes the revision of the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) necessary. This implies that the UDDA markers list should be expanded in perfusion studies to improve diagnostic precision while undertaking only the closely regulated ethical aspect.
Why the Policy is needed:
The Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA), an example of appropriate legislation, is inevitable because of the confusing nature of the whole-brain death criterion that might get to that particular moment in which there are moral dilemmas and uncertainty of the law. Through perfusion research, UDDA can develop a more sophisticated method of brain death declaration by taking the two popular standards and considering cerebral blood flow.
This care coverage must be in place to cover present disparities and for the diagnosis to be accurate and uphold the ethical values at the end of life. Adding what Murphy et al. (2023) called perfusion checks to the brain death diagnosis process can no longer increase the precision of the analysis. In contrast, it provides a more detailed assessment backed by the latest scientific improvements and the community’s views on life care.
Through cerebral angiography, which includes DSA, CT angiography, and perfusion, important parameters about brain function that go beyond earlier ways of deciding death are now attainable (Ren et al., 2022). These tests not only provide a distinctive evaluation of cerebral blood flow but also give a highly accurate and ethically moral analysis of brain death or human life. The enrichment of the UDDA with perfusion-related perfusion-related studies indicates the organization’s unwavering commitment to improving the reliability and consistency of brain death determinations, particularly in specific states. An emerging issue is frequently the reliability of the current diagnosis standard. This should be followed with more work on regulating perfusion, which is aimed at bringing more reliability and moral rigour to the declarations of death instances, which was declared by (Jaffa et al., 2023). This coverage aims to apply complex physical and emotional conditions as more sophisticated diagnostic approaches than neurological ones, exclusively in the criteria of the definition of death. If the intensity modifier scheme were adopted, then having the perfusion check as one of its core attributes would not be a surprise since it is vital to maintaining diagnostic accuracy, reducing uncertainties, and ethics in advanced directive care.
Ethical and Theoretical Principles Supported:
The plan in question is the ethical principles’ hierarchies that principlism offers. They include autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice. Privacy is ensured by providing real data that empowers individuals to weigh in on life support systems and donating organizations 20). Benevolence is ensured through faster organ donation, with solid prospects of saving lives. Maleficence is prevented by minimizing diagnostic mistakes and ensuring that patients are declared lifeless once. Justice in the brain death decree and organ donations are granted through selling equal voting rights and fair opportunities.
Role of Perfusion Studies:
Cerebral blood flow analysis and Cerebral blood perfusion imaging techniques are integral to expanding brain features and viability. In involving perfusion research in the UDDA recommendations, clinicians will rely on cerebral flow as a backup method in addition to the other already existing common standards for brain death diagnosis. This approach also increases the accuracy of the diagnosis, with a lesser risk of misdiagnosis, and there is a guarantee that patients are diagnosed as dead.
Implications and Considerations:
Bringing up this coverage requires the participation of lawmakers, healthcare specialists, and ethicists. Moreover, legal professionals should broaden standardized protocols and suggestions for perfusion research in brain-death dedication. Additionally, education and training programs must be provided to ensure that healthcare professionals are proficient in deciphering perfusion observe consequences as they should be. Revising the UDDA to comprise perfusion studies in brain death dedication is critical to dealing with existing disparities and modifying diagnostic accuracy (Congress, 2022). Also, moral ideas in cease-of-life care should be upheld. This coverage notion aligns with autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice, promoting ethical integrity and ensuring equitable access to correct brain death determination and organ donation opportunities.
Describe your chosen theory before applying it to the Policy. Define the theory. What moral principles does it espouse?
The idea of brain death as a social construct is a topic of ongoing debate and evolving definitions. Critics argue that equating brain death with circulatory death of life ought to cause clinical-moral dilemmas and impact organ donation for transplantation. This debate demands situations the traditional dichotomy of lifeless or alive, emphasizing that death has a broader meaning, of which brain death of life is part. Some students advise a unified definition of death to address the controversies surrounding brain death (Saieva, 2021). They propose standards which include entire-brain death and cardiopulmonary death because of the maximum defensible standards for affirming death. Additionally, there are calls for further exams to appropriately determine a man or woman’s situation regarding brain death of life. The discussions around brain death of life spotlight the complexities in defining death of life and its implications on medical practices and ethical concerns.
The theory espouses ethical ideas: Autonomy, Beneficence, Nonmaleficence, and Justice in Healthcare Ethics. In healthcare ethics, the principle of principlism encompasses four fundamental ethical principles: autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice. These concepts of manual ethical selection-making in clinical exercise are especially critical at some stage in instances of crisis.
Autonomy emphasizes a person’s right to make selections about their very own life and death of life, together with the right to refuse existence-maintaining treatments. In crisis healthcare, all other principles share a new face of autonomy and relational acknowledgement. Based on such observation, policymakers and healthcare leaders would be in a position to know the multitude of effects of their decisions.
Human beneficence is doing something for the better of others; this may involve making their condition the best it could be. They also conduct organ donations, whether for transplantation or research, during times like the COVID-19 pandemic when patient care patients are more than just providing benefits for men or women; beneficence pledges to integrate population health spectra aspect of preventative and therapeutic measures. In addition to health insurance providers, the other actors would have to be considered if a more web-like system is to be created. These actors can affect the broader mission as well. An Ethical Principle of Nonmaleficence is an Optimistic Vision for the world, which involves active precaution to avoid any indecent conduct of others. Therefore, it is required from nonmaleficence processes and also unknown ones for disaster healthcare ethics to provide enough capacity for constant changes. Besides, every provider needs to adopt research as we pass mentality to eradicate harm and ensure that the alternative should be made from the latest findings.
Justice pertains to the truthful allocation of sources and entry to care. Justice becomes paramount in disaster, guiding aid distribution and healthcare choice-making. It ensures that essential services like organ donation and transplantation are to be provided to those in need, emphasizing equitable admission for all people. These four standards of autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice shape the moral basis of healthcare practice. During crises, including public health emergencies or screw-ups, those standards are vital in guiding healthcare professionals toward making ethically sound choices that stabilize man or women’s rights with societal well-being.
One key issue of this concept is the popularity of clinical and technical developments that guide broadening the definition of demise. Death can occur in a manner with transferring limitations as opposed to an unmarried occasion, and it is far stimulated via elements which include character, identification, lifestyle, faith, duties to own family and network, prison rights, and lifelong values. Another critical precept of this theory is the need to respond to objections to the dedication of death by neurological standards. This consists of developing structures to make sure that brain-death determination is constant and correct, responding to issues regarding the concept of brain death, and improving public trust in brain-death willpower. The brain death as a social construct idea recognizes that there is a principle of complicated and controversial notion regarding death definition. It points out that you must consider all the implications and possible objections while deciding. It accepts the aim to liberate people from the narrow definitions of death by manipulating the death margin and enabling technology.
Use your chosen theory to identify an area of the Policy that could be improved or not as morally strong as it could be. State why it could be more ethically sound using your chosen theory for your critique.
The idea of brain death of life as a social construct emphasizes the importance of understanding death as a broader idea that goes beyond a simple dichotomy of alive or useless. It acknowledges that medical and technical trends support broadening the definition of demise, which may occur as a technique of transferring barriers instead of an unmarried event. The theory also acknowledges the need not to forget various factors while figuring out the death of life, inclusive of character, identification, culture, faith, obligations to family and network, criminal rights, and lifetime values.
This concept espouses moral standards of autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice in healthcare ethics. Autonomy emphasizes a person’s right to make selections regarding their own life and death and to refuse life-sustaining remedies. Beneficence includes promoting the well-being of others, which includes organ donation for transplantation. Nonmaleficence centers on avoiding damage to others, such as by ensuring accurate determination of brain death and now not inflicting needless suffering on irreversibly brain-injured patients. Justice plays an imperative role by focusing on the needs of many over the wishes of a man or woman, ensuring honest allocation of resources and entry to care.
In healthcare ethics, this principle can be applied to numerous factors of Policy and exercise. For instance, it may be used to guide choice-making around cease-of-existence care, organ donation and transplantation, and the allocation of resources throughout public health emergencies or screw-ups. By thinking about the more comprehensive means of death and its various factors, healthcare carriers can make extra knowledgeable and ethically sound selections that balance character rights with societal well-being.
State why using your chosen theory in your critique could be more ethically sound.
The concept of brain death as a social assembly is a subject of ongoing debate and evolving definitions. Critics argue that equating brain death with circulatory death of lifestyles has to causes medical-moral dilemmas and affects organ donation for transplantation. This debate challenges the traditional dichotomy of dead or alive, emphasizing that death has a broader meaning, of which brain death is part.
The theory of brain death as a social construct espouses ethical concepts, including autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice in healthcare ethics (Doherty, 2020). However, some regions of the Policy could be stepped forward or made more morally robust. The harbinger of such an issue is the necessity of having the same consistency in the definition of brain death in particular states and institutions that may lead to discord and controversy.
The principle gives the scope of information death as a broader idea by not giving its scope as just alive or useless. It concedes that scientific and technical advances widen the scope of thinking about death, which will likely be mistaken for a permanent activation rather than a final jump. However, the ensuing coverage cannot, in principle, be due to a lack of uniformity in the brain-death determination, which poses questions of an ethical nature and reduces the uniformity in the resource distribution.
For better coverage, there is the necessity of giving much weight to the consistency with the brain death dedication between different states of the country. Apart from that, it could entail uniform standards of brain death determination, more explicit guidelines for article testing, and educational and awareness programs for healthcare personnel and the population regarding the complexities of brain death. Interventions may determine the regions to target to ensure that the theory is consistent with the ideas and that the definition of brain death is universal, fair, and ethical.
Proposed Change
Incorporating Perfusion Studies in Brain Death Criteria
Social death as the component of brain death is viewed as the fact that the death of a person is also the gate of life for others besides the fact of whether a person is alive or dead. It acknowledges that technical and clinical progress leads to expanding the term used to describe death. As this process includes multiple hurdles, death may not be considered a single event. Further, it appreciates the multi-faced nature of death by not forgetting the diverse factors like character and identity, which make an individual unique, position and lifestyle in the family and society, religious obligations and rights, and lifelong values.
A new criterion is sought to solve the problems and eliminate ambiguity in the present-day brain death criteria: do the perfusion studies. Through medication research in pertusion diagnosis, accuracy and diagnostic reliability can be strengthened, moving from the reliance on references for complete brain death one hundred percent (Ludewig et al., 2022). This method will assist neurologists in providing better knowledge of the brain features, increasing acceptance and truthfulness within medical establishments, and providing a more accurate understanding of brain death.
The literature does not just do the trick because cerebral circulation studies are among the most effective options for studying significant brain features beyond the usual understanding. Such studies provide a better and more refined picture regarding cerebral blood flow, which consequently helps to determine the onset of brain death accurately and ethically. Widening the scope of the UDDA framework with perfusion assessment helps avoid misdiagnoses, leads to more certainty in post-life care, and maintains ethics.
Summary and Conclusion:
In summary, measuring brain deadness recalls a complex and all-embracing problem which affects decision-making regarding death care, organ donation as well as healthcare regulations. Current references in a state vary from one state to another and don’t highlight recent breakthroughs. Such disparities have stirred up several rough sails and heated debates as to when a patient is officially dead, which becomes the fundamental basis for the advocation of new laws. With that UDDA algorithm of externally synonymizing the conducted in the brain-dead environment for life criteria, this revision solves the practical problems encountered. Lesion perfusion imaging can sufficiently identify perfusion in cerebral blood flow to sustain the ability to differentiate accurately and reliability in diagnosis. Therefore, this kind of thinking is concerned not only with the system of the whole brain but also with the functionality of the rest of the parts of the body, which collectively results in more considerate and beneficial medical decisions. Meanwhile, the guidelines of ethics, such as autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and jus, are the elements of consideration for transforming them under the umbrella of the UDDA framework.
Autonomy is preserved by making accurate information accessible to patients; they can make informed decisions about end-of-life care and whether to donate organs. Humanism is reinforced through organ donation promotion, a vital process that inevitably saves lives. Nonmaleficence can be reached by avoiding misdiagnosis and not declaring patients dead till they are ultimately lifeless. The principle of justice is achieved through the establishment of equal admission criteria, brain deadness decision-making mechanism, and the opportunity for organ donation.
On the other hand, even though the revision is an excellent move toward creating the best possible brain-death guidelines, it could be better. The coverage has to focus on the need for integrity and uniformization of human death diagnosis, even in extreme states and establishments. Simplicity tips and predefined regulations should be designed to provide consistency when perfusion studies and diagnostic tests are used. On the other hand, education and training packages are designed for healthcare providers to develop skills in decoding perfusion, considering the ramifications, and making precise diagnoses. Education campaigns provided to the general public can help remove fallacies and encourage professional literacy on brain death and organ donation.
Conclusively, an amendment of UCAA has a crucial role in enhancing the precision, reliability, and ethical perception of brain death determination. A policy consolidation to arbitrate between advances in the science of end-of-life care and ethical principles will meet the needs of the patients while enabling the life-saving phenomena of organ donation. It is of utmost importance that policymakers figure it out in cooperation with experts in health care, ethics, and the general public and achieve proper guillotine administration regarding brain death and the whole issue of life. Human values of autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence and justice will always be at the heart of medical decisions. Therefore, through collaboration and dedication to these values, we can create a medical device that will meet all these criteria and promote these ethical standards even in brutal end-of-life choices.
References
Chatterjee, K., Rady, M. Y., Verheijde, J. L., & Butterfield, R. J. (2021). A framework for revisiting brain death: evaluating awareness and attitudes toward the neuroscientific and ethical debate around the American Academy of Neurology brain death criteria. Journal of Intensive Care Medicine, 36(10), 1149-1166. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0885066620985827
Choong, K. A. (2022). The Medico-Legal Development of Neurological Death in the UK. Springer Nature. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=bhyeEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP6&dq=Amending+the+UDDA+to+align+greater+intently+with+medical+exercise,+or+accepting+the+inherent+limitations+in+current+diagnostic+tests+for+brain+death.+&ots=0vg7oGaaoJ&sig=brKKfuUGg0CkkwLH_mXSReomAYc
Congress, A. (2022). European Society of Veterinary Oncology. https://www.esvonc.com/files/ckfinder/files/2022%20Siracusa/Proceedings%20Siracusa%20ESVONC%20Congress%202022(1).pdf
Consolo, H. K. (2023). A critique of the concept of autonomy in organ donation (Doctoral dissertation, University of Glasgow). https://theses.gla.ac.uk/83929/
Doherty, R. F. (2020). Ethical Dimensions in the Health Professions-E-Book: Ethical Dimensions in the Health Professions-E-Book. Elsevier Health Sciences. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=N1cBEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=he+theory+of+brain+death+as+a+social+construct+espouses+ethical+concepts+inclusive+of+autonomy,+beneficence,+nonmaleficence,+and+justice+in+healthcare+ethics.&ots=blAr7mME9B&sig=8DJGVVTP4oX3g63qJk861OX1zxQ
Elam, J. S., Glasser, M. F., Harms, M. P., Sotiropoulos, S. N., Andersson, J. L., Burgess, G. C., … & Van Essen, D. C. (2021). The human connectome project: a retrospective. NeuroImage, 244, 118543. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811921008168
Greer, D. M., Shemie, S. D., Lewis, A., Torrance, S., Varelas, P., Goldenberg, F. D., … & Sung, G. (2020). Determination of brain death/death by neurologic criteria: the world brain death project. Jama, 324(11), 1078-1097. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2769149
Jaffa, M. N., Kirschen, M. P., Tuppeny, M., Reynolds, A. S., Lim-Hing, K., Hargis, M., … & LaBuzetta, J. N. (2023). Enhancing understanding and overcoming barriers in brain death determination using standardized education: a call to action. Neurocritical Care, 39(2), 294-303. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12028-023-01775-5
Ludewig, P., Graeser, M., Forkert, N. D., Thieben, F., Rández‐Garbayo, J., Rieckhoff, J., … & Knopp, T. (2022). Magnetic particle imaging for assessment of cerebral perfusion and ischemia. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Nanomedicine and Nanobiotechnology, 14(1), e1757. https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/wnan.1757
Murphy, N. B., Hartwick, M., Wilson, L. C., Simpson, C., Shemie, S. D., Torrance, S., & Chandler, J. A. (2023). Rationale for revisions to the definition of death and criteria for its determination in Canada. Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d’anesthésie, 70(4), 558–569. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12630-023-02407-4
Pope, T. M., Chandler, J. A., & Hartwick, M. (2023). Consent for determination of death by neurologic criteria in Canada: an analysis of legal and ethical authorities, and consensus-based working group recommendations. Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d’anesthésie, 70(4), 570-584. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12630-023-02430-5
Pugh, J. (2020). Informed consent, autonomy, and beliefs. In autonomy, rationality, and contemporary bioethics [Internet]. Oxford University Press. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK556864/
Ren, B., Tan, L., Song, Y., Li, D., Xue, B., Lai, X., & Gao, Y. (2022). Cerebral small vessel disease: neuroimaging features, biochemical markers, influencing factors, pathological mechanism and treatment. Frontiers in Neurology, 13, 843953. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neurology/articles/10.3389/fneur.2022.843953/full
Saad, S. (2023). A Cognitive Ethnography of the Brain Death Debates (Doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University). https://search.proquest.com/openview/faf17bbab05a532a7257199231fe7b2c/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y
Saieva, S. (2021). Near-Infrared Light Reduces Glia Activation and Modulates Neuroinflammation in Brain of Diet-Induced Obese Mice (Doctoral dissertation). https://utmb-ir.tdl.org/bitstream/handle/2152.3/11348/SAIEVA-DISSERTATIONDOCTORAL-2021.pdf?sequence=1
Siraj, M. S. (2022). How a compensated kidney donation program facilitates the sale of human organs in a regulated market: the implications of Islam on organ donation and sale. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, 17(1), 10. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13010-022-00122-4
Skowronski, G., Ramnani, A., Walton-Sonda, D., Forlini, C., O’Leary, M. J., O’Reilly, L., … & Kerridge, I. (2021). A scoping review of the perceptions of death in the context of organ donation and transplantation. BMC Medical Ethics, 22(1), 167. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12910-021-00734-z
Sussman, A. (2023). Saving the Art of Medicine: Observations of a Practitioner. FriesenPress. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=uBOrEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP10&dq=Amending+the+UDDA+to+align+greater+intently+with+medical+exercise,+or+accepting+the+inherent+limitations+in+current+diagnostic+tests+for+brain+death.+&ots=UNl1hoagTa&sig=V3lryUAbJn-kxUY74Mwt6luYSPc
Thenuwara, G., Curtin, J., & Tian, F. (2023). Advances in diagnostic tools and therapeutic approaches for gliomas: A comprehensive review. Sensors, 23(24), 9842. https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/23/24/9842
Zheng, K., Sutherland, S., Hornby, L., Wilson, L., Shemie, S. D., & Sarti, A. J. (2022). Healthcare professionals’ understandings of the definition and determination of death: a scoping review. Transplantation Direct, 8(4), e1309. https://journals.lww.com/transplantationdirect/fulltext/2022/04000/healthcare_professionals__understandings_of_the.10.aspx
write