Authors
Alberto Molina-Pérez
Instituto de Estudios Sociales Avanzados (IESA-CSIC)
Abstract
Since 1968, a brain-based criterion of death has been adopted in medical practice and passed into law or national guidelines in most countries worldwide. In some countries, such as Australia, Spain, and the United States, death can be determined by either the circulatory and respiratory criterion or by the neurological criterion. This practice corresponds to recommendations by the World Health Organization and the World Medical Association. In the USA, the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) provides that “an individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead.” We show that the UDDA contains two conflicting interpretations of the phrase “cessation of functions”. By one interpretation, what matters for the determination of death is the cessation of spontaneous functions only, regardless of their generation by artificial means. By the other, what matters is the cessation of both spontaneous and artificially supported functions. Because each UDDA criterion uses a different interpretation, the law is conceptually inconsistent. A single consistent interpretation would lead to the conclusion that conscious individuals whose respiratory and circulatory functions are artificially supported are actually dead, or that individuals whose brain is entirely and irreversibly destroyed may be alive. We explore solutions to mitigate the inconsistency.
Keywords Death determination  Functions  Conceptual analysis  Whole-brain death  Uniform Determination of Death Act  Death criteria
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Is It Time to Abandon Brain Death?Robert D. Truog - 1997 - Hastings Center Report 27 (1):29-37.
Are Brain Dead Individuals Dead? Grounds for Reasonable Doubt.E. Christian Brugger - 2016 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 41 (3):329-350.
The Organism as a Whole in an Analysis of Death.Andrew P. Huang & James L. Bernat - 2019 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 44 (6):712-731.

View all 7 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

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.
Brain Death — Too Flawed to Endure, Too Ingrained to Abandon.Robert D. Truog - 2007 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 35 (2):273-281.
Aligning the Criterion and Tests for Brain Death.James L. Bernat & Anne L. Dalle Ave - 2019 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 28 (4):635-641.
The Organism as a Whole in an Analysis of Death.Andrew P. Huang & James L. Bernat - 2019 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 44 (6):712-731.
Decapitation and the Definition of Death.F. G. Miller & R. D. Truog - 2010 - Journal of Medical Ethics 36 (10):632-634.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2022-05-12

Total views
27 ( #425,437 of 2,518,239 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
27 ( #32,431 of 2,518,239 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes