A critique on the concept of "brain death"

Since the concept of "brain death" was introduced in medical terminology, enough evidence has come to light to show that the concept is based on an unclear and incoherent theory. The "brain death" concept suffers by internal inconsistencies in both the tests-criterion and the criterion-definition relationships. It is also evident that there are residual vegetative functions in "brain dead" patients. Since the content of consciousness is inaccessible in these patients who are in a profound coma, the diagnosis of "brain death" is based on an unproved hypothesis. A critical evaluation of the role and the limitations of the confirmatory tests in the diagnosis of "brain death" is attempted. Finally it is pointed out that a holistic approach to the problem of "brain death" in humans should necessarily include the inspection of the content of consciousness.     

Facial approximation: globe projection guideline falsified by exophthalmometry literature

The projection of the cornea from the bony orbit has been determined, in facial approximation, by centrally locating the eyeball in the orbit and positioning the cornea so that its most anterior point falls in line with a tangent dropped from the mid-superior to the mid-inferior orbital rim. However, there appears to be no scientific evidence to justify this guideline; yet, there have been numerous studies that measure globe projection in living subjects, from the lateral orbit using an exophthalmometer. The aim of this study was to determine if the traditional facial approximation guideline is consistent with the exophthalmometry literature. MRI research shows that corneal projection is underestimated using the traditional facial approximation guideline. An underestimation is also strongly supported by statistical comparisons of globe projection measures taken using more traditional instruments (e.g., Hertel's exophthalmometer) to skull morphology (p < 0.006). It is suggested that the traditional facial approximation guideline not be used in future facial approximations since it appears to under-predict anterior globe projection by 4 mm on average. It is also suggested that average exophthalmometer values be used until more accurate and precise ways of determining globe projection have been determined.     

Understanding Children's Use of Secrecy in the Context of Eyewitness Reports

To investigate socioemotional influences on children's eyewitness accuracy, we examined children's reports for activities they were motivated to conceal. Forty-eight 3–6-year-old children participated in a standardized play session with their mothers. Half of the children were told by an experimenter not to play with certain toys, but did so at the urging of their mothers, who told their children to keep the play activities secret. The remaining children were not restricted from playing with the toys, nor told by their mothers to keep the play activities secret. Later, all children were interviewed about the activities with free narrative and detailed questions. Half were given an interview that consisted of highly suggestive questions; half were given an interview consisting of specific, less suggestive questions. Results indicated that older children who were instructed to keep events secret withheld more information than did older children not told to keep events secret. Younger children's reports were not significantly affected by the secret manipulation. There were no significant effects associated with interview type. We discuss implications for understanding the development of children's knowledge and use of secrecy, and applications of the research to issues that arise when child witnesses give reports in legal contexts.     

Do resemblance ratings measure the accuracy of facial approximations?

Since forensic facial approximations are used to promote recognition of a deceased person, an accurate forensic facial approximation (FFA) should be easily recognized as the person to whom the skull belonged (target individual). However, the accuracy of FFAs has been previously assessed by the direct comparison of an FFA to the corresponding target individual for similarity (i.e., a resemblance rating). Resemblance ratings may not indicate a facial approximation's accuracy since the resemblance of non-target individuals is not accounted for. This experiment tests the validity of using resemblance ratings to assess the accuracy of FFAs. The study indicates that there is no statistically significant difference between: (a) resemblance ratings of FFAs to target individuals and (b) resemblance ratings of FFAs to individuals incorrectly identified as the target individual. It is concluded that it is not possible from resemblance ratings to determine the accuracy and/or quality of a facial approximation since a non-target individual may receive a resemblance rating equal to, or higher than, the target individual.