Article Text
Abstract
Although established in the law and current practice, the determination of death according to neurological criteria continues to be controversial. Some scholars have advocated return to the traditional circulatory and respiratory criteria for determining death because individuals diagnosed as ‘brain dead’ display an extensive range of integrated biological functioning with the aid of mechanical ventilation. Others have attempted to refute this stance by appealing to the analogy between decapitation and brain death. Since a decapitated animal is obviously dead, and ‘brain death’ represents physiological decapitation, brain dead individuals must be dead. In this article we refute this ‘decapitation gambit.’ We argue that decapitated animals are not necessarily dead, and that, moreover, the analogy between decapitation and the clinical syndrome of brain death is flawed.
- Quality
- value of life
- personhood
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- A narrative review of the empirical evidence on public attitudes on brain death and vital organ transplantation: the need for better data to inform policy
- Where's Waldo? The ‘decapitation gambit’ and the definition of death
- Death, dying and donation: organ transplantation and the diagnosis of death
- The dead donor rule: effect on the virtuous practice of medicine
- Death and organ donation: back to the future
- Defining death in non-heart beating organ donors
- Death and legal fictions
- Do the ‘brain dead’ merely appear to be alive?
- Organismal death, the dead-donor rule and the ethics of vital organ procurement
- Does it matter that organ donors are not dead? Ethical and policy implications