AMA Journal of Ethics

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

Dr Ariane Lewis discusses how we can navigate uncertainty and ambiguity about brain death by understanding clinical criteria for brain death determination and how our approaches to death are culturally and socially situated.

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.

Death’s legal definition must be responsive to advances in technology, and it must delineate between life and death. Knowing where to draw the line is difficult.

For many physicians, lack of understanding about brain death leads to confusion and muddles interactions with patients’ loved ones at the end of life.

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

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.

AI models might advance human welfare in unprecedented ways, but progress will not occur without substantial risks that will have to be managed.

Dr John Banja joins us to discuss the promises and perils of artificial intelligence in health care applications, including potential “megarisks” posed by AI tools themselves.