British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 73 (2):487-508 (2022)
Authors |
|
Abstract |
Fifty years have passed since brain death was first proposed as a criterion of death. Its advocates believe that with the destruction of the brain, integrated functioning ceases irreversibly, somatic unity dissolves, and the organism turns into a corpse. In this article, I put forward two objections against this assertion. First, I draw parallels between brain death and other pathological conditions and argue that whenever one regards the absence or the artificial replacement of a certain function in these pathological conditions as compatible with organismic unity, then one equally ought to tolerate that function’s loss or replacement in brain death. Second, I show that the neurological criterion faces an additional problem that is only coming to light as life-supporting technology improves: the growing sophistication of the latter gives rise to a dangerous decoupling of the actual performance of a vital function from the retention of neurological control over it. Half a century after its introduction, the neurological criterion is facing the same fate as its cardiopulmonary predecessor.
|
Keywords | Brain Death Death Persistent Vegetative State Unresponsive Wakefulness Syndrome Spinal Cord Transection Hormones Quadriplegia Definition of Death |
Categories | (categorize this paper) |
Reprint years | 2022 |
DOI | 10.1093/bjps/axz045 |
Options |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Download options
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Can Thought Experiments Solve Problems of Personal Identity?Lukas J. Meier - 2022 - Synthese 200 (3):1-23.
Brain Death: What We Are and When We Die.Lukas J. Meier - 2020 - Dissertation, University of St. Andrews
Similar books and articles
Deconstructing the Brain Disconnection–Brain Death Analogy and Clarifying the Rationale for the Neurological Criterion of Death.Melissa Moschella - 2016 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 41 (3):279-299.
The Whole-Brain Concept of Death Remains Optimum Public Policy.James L. Bernat - 2006 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 34 (1):35-43.
Re-Examining Death: Against a Higher Brain Criterion.Josie Fisher - 1999 - Journal of Medical Ethics 25 (6):473-476.
The Challenge of Brain Death for the Sanctity of Life Ethic.Peter Singer - 2018 - Ethics and Bioethics (in Central Europe) 8 (3-4):153-165.
Commentary: Whole-Brain Death Reconsidered-Physiological Facts and Philosophy.C. Pallis - 1983 - Journal of Medical Ethics 9 (1):32.
The Conservative Use of the Brain-Death Criterion – a Critique.Tom Tomlinson - 1984 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 9 (4):377-394.
Pluralismo en torno al significado de la muerte cerebral y/o revisión de la regla del donante fallecido Pluralism about the meaning of brain death and/or the revision of the dead donor rule.David Rodríguez-Arias Vailhen & Alberto Molina Pérez - 2007 - Laguna 21.
Total Brain Death: A Reply to Alan Shewmon.Patrick Lee & Germain Grisez - 2012 - Bioethics 26 (5):275-284.
Brain Death as the End of a Human Organism as a Self-Moving Whole.Adam Omelianchuk - 2021 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 46 (5):530-560.
An Alternative to Brain Death.Jeff McMahan - 2006 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 34 (1):44-48.
Brain Death Symposium: Danish Ethics Council Rejects Brain Death as Criterion of Death.B. A. Rix - 1990 - Journal of Medical Ethics 16 (1):5.
Analytics
Added to PP index
2019-10-10
Total views
76 ( #152,131 of 2,507,664 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
14 ( #56,654 of 2,507,664 )
2019-10-10
Total views
76 ( #152,131 of 2,507,664 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
14 ( #56,654 of 2,507,664 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads