No discussion of when an individual is dead is meaningful in the absence of a definition of death. If human death is defined as the irreversible loss of the capacity for consciousness combined with the irreversible loss of the capacity to breathe spontaneously (and hence to maintain a spontaneous heart beat) the death of the brainstem will be seen to be the necessary and sufficient condition for the death of the individual. Such a definition of death is not something radically (...) new. It is merely the reformulation -- in the language of the neurophysiologist -- of much older concepts such as the 'departure of the (conscious) soul from the body' and the 'loss of the breath of life'. All death -- in this perspective -- is, and always has been, brainstem death... (shrink)

Four main areas generating confusion in discussion on brain death are identified as a) the relation of criteria of death to concepts of death, b) the argument about whether death is an event or a process, c) the inadequate differentiation of different neurological entities having different cardiac prognoses, and d) insufficient awareness of the separate issues of 'determining death' and 'allowing to die'. It is argued that if by death we mean the dissolution of the human 'organism as a whole', (...) then whole-brain death is death. Behavioural patterns, legitimate in the presence of a cadaver, should be legitimate from the time whole-brain death is diagnosed. (shrink)