Chapter 2507: Preventing Oversights from Every Angle

The field of medicine requires rational scientific analysis and demonstration. After extensive research by many medical experts, a consensus has been reached in the medical community. Patients who cannot regain autonomous breathing and heartbeat after removing life support machines were originally found to have irreversible damage to the brainstem, the most crucial part of the human brain, thus called brain death.

Medical experts further discovered that ischemia and hypoxia can lead to brain death. If resuscitation is timely, there is a possibility for the brain to restore function by being reperfused with nutrition from the blood within a specific timeframe, thereby avoiding brain death.

In summary, there is a time discrepancy in brain death. Using machines during resuscitation to save brain cells is correct. However, if the machine is used for a prolonged period and the patient continues to be unable to restore autonomous breathing and heartbeat, it indicates brain death, meaning the person is ultimately dead.

The debate on brain death then returns to how long this time discrepancy lasts. The variability in this timeframe is the cause of clashing opinions in society. Without the ability to scientifically determine an individual’s specific time discrepancy, there is a risk of misjudging a patient’s death.

In statistical terms, some big data cannot be specifically categorized to individuals. Some people have a longer time discrepancy, while for others, it’s shorter. Do not underestimate the difference of a second or minute—it can genuinely determine life or death.

To fully substantiate brain death with factual evidence, one must return to the basics. Doctors must find evidence to demonstrate that the patient’s brain is dead, not just rely on timing.

In the past, neurology specialists possessed the expertise to find evidence required to determine brain death. The issue is that the shortage of clinical personnel is too common. To address the inconvenience and personnel shortage, the internationally accepted practice is to establish criteria for determining brain death. No need for specialist doctors, only clinical doctors, who can perform adequately after short-term training and passing a qualification exam.

This may lead to doubt about whether non-neurology specialists can determine brain death.

There’s no need to worry about this issue. In fact, determining brain death is a process, just as with determining cardiac death in patients. One rule within the brain death determination criteria is that the cause of the patient’s condition must be identified and shown to be due to irreversible brain injury leading to brain death.

This phase requires deep involvement from neurosurgeons and cannot be excluded.

From this, it becomes clear why Cao Yong insisted on sending the child to a specialized hospital like Fang Ze’s. It’s evidently to comprehensively prevent any oversight from occurring. With the most professional team of neurology specialists conducting evaluations, the greatest possible extent of avoiding medical imprecision that might lead to misdiagnosis of the child’s condition can be achieved.

This answered part of Cao Zhao’s doubts, as he heard from his brother’s words an answer he wanted yet somewhat dreaded: "Do you think the child at that time possibly already experienced brain death?"

"What tools did I have on hand at the scene besides a flashlight and cotton swabs?" Cao Yong found it amusing.

As he initially stated, making a medical diagnosis is a very, very precise matter. Although he is a doctor, he doesn’t have X-ray vision, and couldn’t see through to understand what exactly the child’s brain injury was like.

"CT scans need to be done, and not just a single CT scan," Cao Yong emphasized what he had already said.

Do not consider the initial CT indications revealed by their uncle over the phone, hinting that the child’s injury reached the brainstem, as the final result.