{Reference Type}: Editorial
{Title}: The Language of the UDDA is Sufficiently Precise and Pragmatic.
{Author}: Wijdicks EFM;Burkle C;
{Journal}: Neurocrit Care
{Volume}: 0
{Issue}: 0
{Year}: 2024 Jun 11
{Factor}: 3.532
{DOI}: 10.1007/s12028-024-02004-3
{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.