Reconceptualizing brain death as a boundary decision.

Brain death, or death by neurologic criteria (BD/DNC), is commonly presented as a determination that, performed correctly, yields a settled fact. Yet at the bedside it often functions less like discovery than conversion: a protocolized sequence authorizes a rapid shift in what the patient is understood to be and what families are expected to accept. This paper reframes BD/DNC disputes as boundary decisions that join physiology to moral status and institutional authority. Taking thanatopolitics, the political administration of death, as its organizing concept, and drawing on the lineage from Foucault's biopolitics through Agamben's bare life to Mbembe's necropolitics, together with the relational nursing ethics of Tronto and Benner, it argues that these controversies are conflicts about meaning, responsibility, and trust rather than misunderstandings of neurologic criteria. Because nursing work is grounded in prolonged proximity to the patient's body and the family's reading of it, nurses occupy a distinctive ethical position that generates duties of care even when medico-legal status is treated as settled. I defend a requirement for informed consent, or an equivalent authorization process, before brain death testing, understood as a procedural safeguard rather than a family veto and consistent with nursing's obligations to advocacy and equity. The case of Jahi McMath, declared brain dead in Oakland in 2013, threads through the argument.