The World Brain Death Project: The More You Say It Does Not Make It True

Journal of Clinical Ethics 32 (2):97-108 (2021)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The World Brain Death Project clarified many aspects of the diagnosis of brain death/death by neurologic criteria. Clearer descriptions than previously published were presented concerning the etiology, prerequisites, minimum clinical criteria, apnea testing targets, and indications for ancillary testing. Nevertheless, there remained many epistemic and metaphysical assertions that were either false, ad hoc, or confused. Epistemically, the project was not successful in explaining away remaining brain functions, complex reflexes as “spinal,” the risk and lack of utility of the apnea test, the ignored and often present confounders of central endocrine dysfunction and high-cervical-spinal-cord injury, the limitations of ancillary tests, or the cases of reversibility of some findings of brain death/death by neurologic criteria. Metaphysically, the World Brain Death Project variously suggested different concepts of death that were not supported with argument. Concepts offered included simply restating the criterion of brain death/death by neurologic criteria; personhood, without recognizing it is a higher-brain concept; and emergent functions of the organism as a whole, without specifying what these might be, if not biologic anti-entropic integration that actually remains after brain death/death by neurologic criteria. The World Brain Death Project only offered confused metaphysical discussion, and gave no reason why the state they described as brain death/death by neurologic criteria should be considered death itself. The main epistemic and metaphysical problems with brain death/death by neurologic criteria remain untouched by the World Brain Death Project.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,435

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Brain death without definitions.Winston Chiong - 2005 - Hastings Center Report 35 (6):20-30.
The biophilosophical basis of whole-brain death.James L. Bernat - 2002 - Soc Philos Policy 19 (2):324-42.
The Whole-Brain Concept of Death Remains Optimum Public Policy.James L. Bernat - 2006 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 34 (1):35-43.
Whole-brain death reconsidered.A. Browne - 1983 - Journal of Medical Ethics 9 (1):28-44.
Brain Death — Too Flawed to Endure, Too Ingrained to Abandon.Robert D. Truog - 2007 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 35 (2):273-281.
The Biophilosophical Basis Of Whole-brain Death.James Bernat - 2002 - Social Philosophy and Policy 19 (2):324-342.
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.
Brain Death: Do We Know Enough?Nancy Valko - 2016 - The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 16 (1):55-59.
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.
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.
The problematic symmetry between brain birth and brain death.D. G. Jones - 1998 - Journal of Medical Ethics 24 (4):237-242.

Analytics

Added to PP
2023-06-14

Downloads
18 (#821,353)

6 months
15 (#161,097)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references