Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 18 (4):351-374 (1993)

John Lizza
Kutztown University of Pennsylvania
This paper challenges the recommendation of 1981 President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research that all jurisdictions in the United States should adopt the Uniform Determination of Death Act, which endorses a whole-brain, rather than a higher-brain, definition of death. I argue that the Commission was wrong to reject the "personhood argument" for the higher-brain definition on the grounds that there is no consensus among philosophers or the general population as to what constitutes "personhood". I claim that philosophers agree that some potential for cognitive function is necessary for personhood and that, when this is absent in cases of anencephaly and persistent vegetative state (PVS), the individual should be considered dead. I further argue that the lack of consensus among the general population is due in large measure to misunderstandings about the medical reality of PVS and beliefs influenced by feelings for a specific individual in PVS. I also examine and reject two tutiorist arguments which have been used to support the Commission's position: that the higher-brain definition would threaten the severely senile and severely retarded, and that there are not currently adequate medical techniques for determining when all higher-brain activities have ceased. Keywords: death, personhood, persistent vegetative state, anencephaly CiteULike Connotea What's this?
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1093/jmp/18.4.351
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 70,130
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Psychopathy: Morally Incapacitated Persons.Heidi Maibom - 2017 - In Thomas Schramme & Steven Edwards (eds.), Handbook of the Philosophy of Medicine. Dordrecht: Springer. pp. 1109-1129.

View all 9 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Criteria for Death: Self-Determination and Public Policy.Hans-Martin Sass - 1992 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 17 (4):445-454.
Defining Death for Persons and Human Organisms.John P. Lizza - 1999 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 20 (5):439-453.
Abandon the Dead Donor Rule or Change the Definition of Death?Robert M. Veatch - 2004 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 14 (3):261-276.
Epistemology of Brain Death Determination.Douglas N. Walton - 1981 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 2 (3):259-274.
The Conservative Use of the Brain-Death Criterion – a Critique.Tom Tomlinson - 1984 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 9 (4):377-394.


Added to PP index

Total views
39 ( #290,963 of 2,506,410 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #416,997 of 2,506,410 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes