This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Marshall J. Keilson, MD
Maimonides Hospital 4802 10th Ave Brooklyn, NY 11219

Arch Neurol. 1991;48(8):789.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.

—I read with great interest the article "Apneic Oxygenation in Apnea Tests for Brain Death: A Controlled Trial." in the October issue of the ARCHIVES¹ The "Patients and Methods" section mentions that "all patients were deeply comatose with absent brain-stem reflexes and no spontaneous respirations." If all of these patients had already been declared legally brain dead (including proper apneic oxygenation), then it should have been explicitly stated. If that were not the case, how was it ethically (or legally) permissible to disconnect respirators from patients who were not legally brain dead? It is not at all suprising that in that group significant hypoxia developed and one patient had cardiac arrest!

New York State health regulations require that families be notified when brain death is being confirmed. Was this study performed with familial consent? A simply explanatory sentence in this otherwise very interesting article could avoid . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?