However, if an ICU physician declared the patient in case 3 dead after 2 min of asystole based on the plan not to perform CPR, but then performed successful CPR, it would show that the prevailing practice of early death determination could create errors if the conditions under which it is valid have been violated. Similarly, if an ICU physician were to perform CPR on a DCDD donor (analogous to case 3), the same error would occur. From a purely ontologic perspective, neither patient is dead until irreversibility can be proved or is obvious. But we allow physicians to declare death at the point of permanent cessation without awaiting or proving irreversibility because this is what physicians and society have determined that we mean by death. Death statutes, such as the Uniform Determination of Death Act, accommodate this practice by their language, stating, “A determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.” Thus, medical practice issues, not ontologic ones, are paramount in the DCDD argument.