This week, in JAMA Neurology, some of the most distinguished neurologists in the world bemoan the high level of variability in how U.S. institutions assess brain death. Institutions vary in terms of: (a) expertise required, (b) number of exams, (c) method of testing, and (d) use of ancillary testing.
|Alieta Eck, Jahi’s attending|
physician in New Jersey
- 16: Jahi is not brain dead. So, any possible cessation is December 2013 was not “irreversible.”
- 51: “There has never been a case like Jahi’s ever before in the history of the US medical or judicial system.”
- 186: The cessation of brain function “sufficient for the court ruling in December 2014 turned out to not be ‘irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain’ but rather, at most, a temporary cessation of some functions of some portions of Jahi’s brain.”
- 227: Jahi “does not now (and therefore did not ever) meet the criteria for being declared dead.”
Here are allegations in the state court December 23 opposition to demurrer:
- There are new facts after the prior adjudication in December 2013
- Jahi’s condition is far from “static, fixed, or permanent”
The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.