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.

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

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.

When responding to an ad for a job caring for patient-detainees along the US southern border, applicants should anticipate the need to navigate dual loyalties.

Force feeding, unnecessary x-rays, misusing health information, and discharging unstable patients are classic dual-loyalty dilemmas reminiscent of the Holocaust.

Some refugees’ illness experiences preclude them from testifying and accurately representing their own interests during asylum adjudication proceedings.