Brain Death: Difference between revisions

== Criterion for Detecting Death in a Brain-Dead Patient ==

Does the title "dead" apply to patients afflicted with brain death? Jurists have presented various views in response to this question. It seems that this disagreement returns to the difference of opinion in the issue of the validity and credibility of the common diagnosis or the jurist's statement in detecting common subjects. Some jurists consider the common diagnosis valid and the jurist's duty to be merely deducing the ruling; but others in some cases consider the jurist's statement superior to the common opinion.<ref>See: ʿAlīdūst, “Expert Opinions of the Jurist on Subjects of Rulings”, pp. 50–54.</ref> The views of jurists regarding the authority for detecting death in a brain patient can be divided into two categories:

From the perspective of some contemporary jurists such as [[Muhammad Fazel Lankarani|Muḥammad Fāżel Lankarānī]]<ref>Khodādādī, *Rulings for Physicians and Patients*, pp. 149–150.</ref> and [[Jawad Tabrizi|Javād Tabrīzī]]<ref>Khūʾī and Tabrīzī, 1390 SH, p. 279.</ref> the common diagnosis regarding subjects is valid. According to Muḥammad Fāżel Lankarānī, since the common people (*ʿurf-e ʿāmm*) consider a brain-dead patient alive, these patients have the rulings of a living person.<ref>Khodādādī, *Rulings for Physicians and Patients*, pp. 149–150.</ref> [[Muhammad Mumin|Muḥammad Muʾmin]] also believes that although detecting vital signs of the brain is the responsibility of a specialist physician, determining the concept of life and death is a common issue, and to detect it, one must refer to a jurist aware of the common language. Also, Muḥammad Muʾmin and [[Mohammad Mohammadi Ghaeni]] believe that if the heart's activity is spontaneous and without device assistance, the patient is considered alive, and otherwise, death is ruled.<ref>Muʾmin, “Organ Transplantation”, p. 45; Qāʾinī, *al-Mabsūṭ Masāʾil Ṭibbīyah*, vol. 1, pp. 135–136, 139.</ref>