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?

Edward V. Spudis, MD
PO Box 25187 Winston-Salem, NC 27114-5187

Arch Neurol. 1993;50(2):132.

	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.

—Both Bernat¹ and Youngner² presented compassionate summaries of our ongoing uneasiness with the concept of whole-brain death. Both point out that lay persons, physicians, and legislators all have problems distinguishing between wholebrain criteria and the popularized idea of "vegetating."³ For example, the North Carolina General Assembly (Bill 821, 1991) uniquely attempts to simplify the management of the persistent vegetative state by adding that such patients "... will succumb to death within a short period of time," without artificial nutrition or hydration. Further, any North Carolina citizen may now authorize, in advance, that artificial nutrition be withheld in the presence of terminal illness, permanent coma, persistent vegetative state or even "severe" dementia. This must be a prime example of conscientious lawmakers—even after intensive medical hearings, blending whole brain and higher brain (dementia) concepts of brain death. Depending on any local definition of artificial nutrition, patients in . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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