Brain Death, Challenges Between Reality and the New Concept of Death May Not Be Synonymous With the True Meaning and Need Redefining

Background and Objectives: Brain death is a new term that has forced medical professionals, religions, law practitioners, and even ordinary people in society to challenge the obscure mystery of death. The purpose of this article is to develop a different perspective and design a new strategy to manage brain-dead patients based on the principles of justice, autonomy, beneficence, and nonmaleficence in medical ethics. Methods: This research is a review study that has been conducted by collecting information through various sources, including books, articles from libraries, and electronic resources by search engines Google Scholar, PubMed, Direct Science, Ovid, SID, and Iranmedex. Results: Death is a general concept, and brain death is part of this general concept and not equivalent to definite death. The moral and legal laws of the living person can be generalized to the entire life cycle of brain death. The concept of brain death is a new topic and deserves to be revised and updated and may need to be redefined. Conclusion: Brain death is not equivalent to physiological and definite death, and a person with the label of brain death can be at most considered a patient with an irreversible condition. Regarding medical ethics, the futility of allocating more resources to brain-dead patients, terminating their lives, using their organs for transplantation, and saving another human life and the like are a moral dilemma. These issues need further investigation, and, if necessary, the decision-making process should be changed according to the current situation.