A definition of human death should not be related to organ transplants. (Clinical ethics: debate).

Kerridge et al recently published a paper in the journal about organ transplantation and the diagnosis of death. (1) Although I appreciate the authors' efforts to present their arguments about such a controversial issue, I found some inconsistencies in this article that I would like to discuss

When Kerridge and his collaborators discussed the origins of the concept of brain death (BD), they emphasised that after the report of the medical consultants on the diagnosis of death to the US President's Commission was published in 1981, (2) clinicians equated the concept of BD with brainstem death. In fact, the brainstem criterion was first proposed by Mohandas and Chou in Minnesota, in 1971. (3) The Minnesota criteria inspired the UK code, which was mainly adopted in UK commonwealth countries. (4) This view was afterwards powerfully defended by Christopher Pallis. (5) After the US President's Commission report, (2) a lot of countries, and most US states, accepted the whole brain, and not the brainstem, criterion. (6)

Regarding the "dead donor rule", with the advent of transplant surgery, interest in definitions and diagnosis of death based on brain formulations really acquired a new urgency. None the less, it is important to point out that the concept of BD as death of the individual, did not appear to benefit organ transplantation, but was a consequence of the development of intensive care. As Pallis emphasised, if organ transplant techniques had never been developed, intensive care procedures would have provided the possibility of supplying life support to those cases with destroyed brains and preserved heart function, and physicians would need to face the clinical syndrome called BD. (5) When French neurophysiologists and neurologists described the death of the nervous system and coma depasse, organ transplant techniques were only in the very early stages of development. (5 6)

Also Kerridge et al only …