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

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.

Adapting content in response to new science is common, but educators can struggle to offer current questions that matter to students.

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.

When police officers and clinicians perceive a moral transgression committed by an agent responding to risk in the field, they are susceptible to moral injury.

Identifying when and how personal, professional, or social value systems are affected by moral injury can inform efforts to mitigate it.