↓ Skip to main content

Not quite dead: why Egyptian doctors refuse the diagnosis of death by neurological criteria

Overview of attention for article published in Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, April 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
Title
Not quite dead: why Egyptian doctors refuse the diagnosis of death by neurological criteria
Published in
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, April 2013
DOI 10.1007/s11017-013-9245-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sherine Hamdy

Abstract

Drawing on two years of ethnographic fieldwork in Egypt focused on organ transplantation, this paper examines the ways in which the "scientific" criteria of determining death in terms of brain function are contested by Egyptian doctors. Whereas in North American medical practice, the death of the "person" is associated with the cessation of brain function, in Egypt, any sign of biological life is evidence of the persistence, even if fleeting, of the soul. I argue that this difference does not exemplify an irresolvable culture clash but points to an unsettling aspect of cadaveric organ procurement that has emerged wherever organ transplantation is practiced. Further, I argue that a misdiagnosis of the problem, as one about "religious extremism" or a "civilizational clash," has obfuscated unresolved concerns about fairness, access, and justice within Egyptian medical spheres. This misdiagnosis has led to the suspension of a cadaveric procurement program for over 30 years, despite Egypt's pioneering efforts in kidney transplantation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 49 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 11 22%
Student > Master 9 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 12%
Researcher 4 8%
Other 4 8%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 9 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 12 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Philosophy 3 6%
Arts and Humanities 3 6%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 10 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 July 2023.
All research outputs
#15,865,250
of 25,109,675 outputs
Outputs from Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics
#176
of 322 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,548
of 205,256 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics
#4
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,109,675 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 322 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 205,256 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.