Supreme Court's Consideration for Brain Death Certification
The Supreme Court is reviewing the efficacy of brain angiogram and Electroencephalogram (EEG) as potential better alternatives to the current Apnea test for determining brain death. This consideration arises from concerns about malpractice in brain death certification, particularly related to organ transplantation.
Background
- The case was brought forward by S Ganapathy, a Kerala-based medic and activist, who alleges malpractice in brain death certification aimed at facilitating organ harvesting.
- The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, is considering the appeal against a 2017 Kerala High Court order that did not grant Ganapathy the desired reliefs.
Issues with Current Practices
- Ganapathy argues the Apnea test is subjective and not foolproof, making it unreliable for declaring someone brain dead.
- He highlights the cessation of blood supply to the brain during brain death, making brain angiogram and EEG more reliable alternatives.
- Despite legal requirements, there are claims that the apnea test is not always videographed as mandated.
Legal Framework
- The Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994, amended in 2011, outlines procedures for organ transplantation and allows states to constitute boards for this purpose.
- Justice Mehta emphasized that the issue is not with the existing procedure but with its non-compliance and the appropriateness of tests used for certifying brain death.
Next Steps
- The court plans to ask the Head of the Neurology Department at AIIMS to form a committee to provide expert opinions on the safety and viability of the suggested tests.
- Ganapathy has been asked to submit his suggestions in writing, after which the court will issue an order.
