Abstract：
We have a reason to value the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA). Since enactment, the UDDA has been of paramount importance to US citizens, families of comatose patients, and the health care professionals who care for them. The UDDA sets forth two standards for determining death and leaves to the medical community to elaborate criteria by which physicians can determine when those standards have been met. Neurologists and neurocritical care experts always have been center stage in this effort. Perfectly established, why change it? What ignited the recent review of the UDDA were lawsuits questioning medical (neurological) authority leading to the wording and accuracy of the UDDA being revisited. The major objections to the language of the UDDA by several groups led a committee appointed by the Uniform Law Commission to consider several substantial changes in the Act. After several years of discussion without reaching a consensus, the committee\'s chair suspended the effort. Upending the UDDA will lead to a legal crisis and confusion across the states. We present our main arguments against revising this statute and argue that the committee\'s failure to revise the UDDA should actually be seen as a necessary success.
摘要：
我们有理由重视《统一死亡判定法》(UDDA)。自颁布以来，UDA对美国公民来说是最重要的，昏迷患者的家属，以及照顾他们的医疗保健专业人员。UDA规定了确定死亡的两个标准，并留给医学界详细阐述医生可以确定何时达到这些标准的标准。神经学家和神经重症监护专家一直是这项工作的中心舞台。完美建立，Whychangeit?WhatlightstherecentreviewoftheUDDAwerelawsquestioningmedical(neuronology)authorityleadingtotheworkationandacciracityoftheUDDAbeingrevisioned.几个团体对UDDA语言的主要反对意见导致统一法律委员会任命的一个委员会考虑了该法案的几项重大修改。经过几年的讨论，没有达成共识，委员会主席暂停了这项工作。UpendingUDA将导致各州的法律危机和混乱。我们提出了反对修改本法规的主要论点，并认为委员会未能修改UDA实际上应被视为必要的成功。
