Background and objectivesIn Bahrain, maintaining life support at all costs is a cultural value considered to be embedded in the Islamic religion. We explore end-of-life decision making for brain dead patients in an Arab country where medical cultures are dominated by Western ideas and the lay culture is Eastern.MethodsIn-depth interviews were conducted from February to April 2018 with 12 Western-educated Bahraini doctors whose medical practice often included end-of-life decision making. Discussions were about who should make withdrawal of life support decisions, (...) how decisions are made and the context for decision making. To develop results, we used the inductive method of thematic analysis.ResultsInformants considered it difficult to engage non-medical people in end-of-life decisions because of people’s reluctance to talk about death and no legal clarity about medical responsibilities. There was disagreement about doctors’ roles with some saying that end-of-life decisions were purely medical or purely religious but most maintaining that such decisions need to be collectively owned by medicine, patients, families, religious advisors and society. Informants practised in a legal vacuum that made their ethics interpretations and clinical decision making idiosyncratic regarding end-of-life care for brain dead patients. Participants referred to contrasts between their current practice and previous work in other countries, recognising the influences of religious and cultural dimensions on their practice in Bahrain.ConclusionsEnd-of-life decisions challenge Western-trained doctors in Bahrain as they grapple with aligning respect for local culture with their training in the ethical practice of Western medicine. (shrink)

The established view regarding ‘brain death’ in medicine and medical ethics is that patients determined to be dead by neurological criteria are dead in terms of a biological conception of death, not a philosophical conception of personhood, a social construction or a legal fiction. Although such individuals show apparent signs of being alive, in reality they are dead, though this reality is masked by the intervention of medical technology. In this article, we argue that an appeal to the distinction between (...) appearance and reality fails in defending the view that the ‘brain dead’ are dead. Specifically, this view relies on an inaccurate and overly simplistic account of the role of medical technology in the physiology of a ‘brain dead’ patient. We conclude by offering an explanation of why the conventional view on ‘brain death’, though mistaken, continues to be endorsed in light of its connection to organ transplantation and the dead donor rule. (shrink)