The Uniform Law Commission paused work of the Drafting Committee to Revise the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) in September 2023.

Thematic review was performed of comments submitted to the Uniform Law Commission by medical organizations (MO), organ procurement organizations (OPO), and advocacy organizations (AO) from 1/1/2023 to 7/31/2023.

Of comments from 41 organizations (22 AO, 15 MO, 4 OPO), 34 (83%) supported UDDA revision (50% OPO, 33% MO recommended against revision). The most comments addressed modifications to “all functions of the entire brain, including the brainstem” (31; 95% AO, 75% OPO, 47% MO), followed by irreversible versus permanent (25; 77% AO, 50% OPO, 40% MO), accommodation of brain death/death by neurologic criteria (BD/DNC) objections (23; 100% OPO, 80% MO, 32% AO), consent for BD/DNC evaluation (18; 75% OPO, 47% MO, 36% AO), “accepted medical standards” (13; 36% AO, 33% MO, 0% OPO), notification before BD/DNC evaluation (14; 100% OPO, 53% MO, 9% AO), time to gather before discontinuation of organ support after BD/DNC determination (12; 60% MO, 25% OPO, 9% AO), and BD/DNC examiner credential requirements (2; 13% MO, 0% AO, 0% OPO). The predominant themes were that the revised UDDA should include the term “irreversible” and shouldn’t (1) stipulate specific medical guidelines, (2) require notification before BD/DNC evaluation, or (3) require time to gather before discontinuation of organ support after BD/DNC determination. Views on other topics were mixed, but MO and OPO generally advocated for the revised UDDA to take a functional approach to BD/DNC, not require consent for BD/DNC evaluation, and not require opt-out accommodation of BD/DNC objections. Contrastingly, many AO and some MO with religious affiliations or a focus on advocacy favored the revised UDDA take an anatomic approach to BD/DNC or eliminate BD/DNC altogether, require consent for BD/DNC evaluation, and require opt-out accommodation of BD/DNC objections.

Most commenting organizations support UDDA revision, but perspectives on the approach vary, so the Drafting Committee could not formulate revisions that would be agreeable to all stakeholders.