Criteria in statutes and tests used to diagnose brain death don’t always jibe, and this can undermine public trust in death pronouncements.

This article features a digital photo painting of a clinician during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Religious and cultural values can conflict with clinical standard practice and law.

Since 1995, the American Academy of Neurology has provided guidelines for brain death determination, but nationwide adherence to these guidelines has been incomplete.

A patient’s transition from “living” to “dying” is not socially marked in the same way death is marked, and this is both clinically and ethically relevant.

Since 1968, ethical questions about brain death have become “well settled,” yet remain “persistently unresolved.”

The DDR requires organ donors to be dead according to legal criteria prior to organ removal, and it’s rooted in fears of civil and criminal liability.

Public awareness of brain death is based largely on inaccurate media representations. It’s no wonder so few of us understand brain death.

Lack of ethical, legal, and clinical consensus about best practice sometimes combines with a poor clinical evidence base.

Lobbying, maintaining diagnostic skill, participating in national societies, and contributing to robust discourse can influence practice and policy.