↓ Skip to main content

Brain-Dead Patients are not Cadavers: The Need to Revise the Definition of Death in Muslim Communities

Overview of attention for article published in HEC Forum, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 Mendeley
Title
Brain-Dead Patients are not Cadavers: The Need to Revise the Definition of Death in Muslim Communities
Published in
HEC Forum, September 2012
DOI 10.1007/s10730-012-9196-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mohamed Y. Rady, Joseph L. Verheijde

Abstract

The utilitarian construct of two alternative criteria of human death increases the supply of transplantable organs at the end of life. Neither the neurological criterion (heart-beating donation) nor the circulatory criterion (non-heart-beating donation) is grounded in scientific evidence but based on philosophical reasoning. A utilitarian death definition can have unintended consequences for dying Muslim patients: (1) the expedited process of determining death for retrieval of transplantable organs can lead to diagnostic errors, (2) the equivalence of brain death with human death may be incorrect, and (3) end-of-life religious values and traditional rituals may be sacrificed. Therefore, it is imperative to reevaluate the two different types and criteria of death introduced by the Resolution (Fatwa) of the Council of Islamic Jurisprudence on Resuscitation Apparatus in 1986. Although we recognize that this Fatwa was based on best scientific evidence available at that time, more recent evidence shows that it rests on outdated knowledge and understanding of the phenomenon of human death. We recommend redefining death in Islam to reaffirm the singularity of this biological phenomenon as revealed in the Quran 14 centuries ago.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 65 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 18%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Student > Postgraduate 5 8%
Other 5 8%
Other 17 26%
Unknown 15 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 12%
Social Sciences 4 6%
Philosophy 3 5%
Arts and Humanities 3 5%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 21 32%
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 29 December 2013.
All research outputs
#14,734,103
of 22,679,690 outputs
Outputs from HEC Forum
#120
of 184 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,571
of 172,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age from HEC Forum
#4
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,679,690 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 184 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 172,156 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.