The past decade has witnessed escalating legal and ethical challenges to the diagnosis of death by neurologic criteria (DNC). The legal tactic of demanding consent for the apnea test, if successful, can halt the DNC. However, US law is currently unsettled and inconsistent in this matter. Consent has been required in several trial cases in Montana and Kansas but not in Virginia and Nevada. In this paper, we analyze and evaluate the legal and ethical bases for requiring consent before apnea testing and defend such a requirement by appealing to ethical and legal principles of informed consent and battery and the right to refuse medical treatment. We conclude by considering and rebutting two major objections to a consent requirement for apnea testing: (1) a justice-based objection to allocate scarce resources fairly and (2) a social utility objection that halting the diagnosis of brain death will reduce the number of organ donors.

中文翻译：

---

在脑死亡判定中需要同意进行呼吸暂停测试的法律和道德考虑。


过去十年，根据神经学标准（DNC）诊断死亡所面临的法律和伦理挑战不断升级。如果成功的话，要求同意进行呼吸暂停测试的法律策略可以阻止民主党全国委员会的活动。然而，美国法律目前在这一问题上并不稳定且不一致。蒙大拿州和堪萨斯州的几起审判案件都需要征得同意，但弗吉尼亚州和内华达州则不需要。在本文中，我们分析和评估了在呼吸暂停测试之前要求同意的法律和道德基础，并通过诉诸知情同意和殴打以及拒绝医疗权利的道德和法律原则来捍卫这一要求。最后，我们考虑并反驳了对呼吸暂停测试同意要求的两个主要反对意见：（1）基于正义的反对意见，即公平分配稀缺资源；（2）社会公用事业反对意见，即停止脑死亡的诊断将减少脑死亡的数量。器官捐献者。