What does ‘brain dead’ really mean? The battle over how science defines the end of life
Ideological differences threaten to muddy the definition of death in the United States – with potentially negative consequences for clinicians and people awaiting organ transplants.
Dead in California but alive in New Jersey: that was the status of 13-year-old Jahi McMath after physicians in Oakland, California, declared her brain dead in 2013, after complications from a tonsillectomy.
Unhappy with the care that their daughter received and unwilling to remove life support, McMath’s family moved with her to New Jersey, where the law allowed them to lodge a religious objection to the declaration of brain death and keep McMath connected to life-support systems for another four and a half years.
Prompted by such legal discrepancies and a growing number of lawsuits around the United States, a group of neurologists, physicians, lawyers and bioethicists is attempting to harmonize state laws surrounding the determination of death.
They say that imprecise language in existing laws – as well as research done since the laws were passed – threatens to undermine public confidence in how death is defined worldwide.
“Death is something that should be a set, finite thing. It shouldn’t be something that’s left up to interpretation.”
Since 2021, a committee in the Uniform Law Commission (ULC), a non-profit organization in Chicago, Illinois, that drafts model legislation for states to adopt, has been revising its recommendation for the legal determination of death.
The drafting committee hopes to clarify the definition of brain death, determine whether consent is required to test for it, specify how to handle family objections and provide guidance on how to incorporate future changes to medical standards.
The broader membership of the ULC will offer feedback on the first draft of the revised law at a meeting on 26 July. After members vote on it, the text could be ready for state legislatures to consider by the middle of next year.
🔗 Texto adaptado de: What does ‘brain dead’ really mean? The battle over how science defines the end of life. Nature. Disponível em: nature.com. Acesso em: 12 set. 2023.
🟨 QUESTÃO 01
Com base no fragmento do texto:
“They say that imprecise language in existing laws – as well as research done since the laws were passed – threatens to undermine public confidence in how death is defined worldwide.”
Assinale a alternativa que apresenta corretamente o sinônimo da palavra “undermine”.
(A) countenance
(B) enhance
(C) improve
(D) jeopardize
(E) strengthen
Gabarito: D
🧭 Leitura orientada
A frase afirma que uma linguagem imprecisa nas leis “ameaça” a confiança pública na definição de morte. Portanto, undermine está ligado à ideia de enfraquecer, prejudicar ou colocar em risco algo.
📝 Análise técnica das alternativas
(A) countenance — significa “aprovar” ou “tolerar”. 🚩 Pegadinha da banca: palavra formal que parece negativa, mas é positiva.
(B) enhance — significa “melhorar”. 🚩 Pegadinha evitada: é o oposto de undermine.
(C) improve — significa “aprimorar”. 🚩 Pegadinha evitada: também é antônimo.
(D) jeopardize — significa “colocar em risco”, “ameaçar”. 🚩 Pegadinha evitada: corresponde exatamente ao efeito descrito no texto.
(E) strengthen — significa “fortalecer”. 🚩 Pegadinha da banca: é o contrário do sentido do texto.
🚩 Armadilhas da banca
A banca explora verbos que parecem sofisticados (countenance) e antônimos claros (enhance, improve, strengthen) para confundir quem não analisa o efeito lógico da frase.
🧠 Resumo B3GE™ Master
No contexto do texto, undermine significa enfraquecer ou colocar em risco algo. O único verbo que preserva esse sentido é jeopardize.