While there is increasing pressure on scarce health care resources, advances in medical science have blurred the boundary between life and death. Individuals can survive for decades without consciousness and individuals whose whole brains are dead can be supported for extended periods. One suggested response is to redefine death, justifying a higher brain criterion for death. This argument fails because it conflates two distinct notions about the demise of human beings--the one, biological and the other, ontological. Death is a biological phenomenon. This view entails the rejection of a higher brain criterion of death. Moreover, I claim that the justification of the whole brain (or brain stem) criterion of death is also cast into doubt by these advances in medical science. I proceed to argue that there is no need to redefine death in order to identify which treatments ought to be provided for the permanently and irreversibly unconscious. There are already clear treatment guidelines.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Other content recommended for you
- Death, dying and donation: organ transplantation and the diagnosis of death
- Death and organ donation: back to the future
- Does it matter that organ donors are not dead? Ethical and policy implications
- Theological reflections on donation after circulatory death: the wisdom of Paul Ramsey and Moshe Feinstein
- Where's Waldo? The ‘decapitation gambit’ and the definition of death
- Organismal death, the dead-donor rule and the ethics of vital organ procurement
- An analysis of heart donation after circulatory determination of death
- A dualist analysis of abortion: personhood and the concept of self qua experiential subject
- Infanticide and moral consistency
- Elective ventilation and the politics of death