Two commentaries respond to a case about apnea testing to confirm death by neurologic criteria.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Information different patients need or want about cybersecurity risk varies, so communicating clearly is always key.

A history of device oversight by the US Food and Drug Administration traces regulatory changes in response to injuries caused by Dalkon Shield intrauterine devices.