On the ordinary concept of death
Journal of Applied Philosophy 27 (2):109-122 (2010)
| Abstract | What is death? The question is of wide-ranging practical importance because we need to be able to distinguish the living from the dead in order to treat both appropriately; specifically, the permissibility of retrieving vital organs for transplantation depends upon the potential donor's ontological status. There is a well-established and influential biological definition of death as irreversible breakdown in the functioning of the organism as a whole, but it continues to elicit disquiet and rejoinders. The central claims of this paper are that the best way to address the question as to what death is, is to attend closely to our ordinary concept of death; doing so reveals that, whilst our ordinary understanding accommodates the biological definition, it also includes the thought that, for someone who has died, there will never again be anything it is like to be that person. Support for these claims is provided, and their academic and practical implications traced. The important practical implication is that we are left in quandary as to whether certain potential organ donors — for example, anencephalic babies and the permanently vegetative — are dead, a quandary that has serious implications for the relevance of the dead donor rule in transplant ethics | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,672 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesFranklin G. Miller & Robert Truog (2011). Death, Dying, and Organ Donation: Reconstructing Medical Ethics at the End of Life. Oxford University Press.
A. S. Iltis & M. J. Cherry (2010). Death Revisited: Rethinking Death and the Dead Donor Rule. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 35 (3):223-241.
Elysa R. Koppelman (2003). The Dead Donor Rule and the Concept of Death: Severing the Ties That Bind Them. American Journal of Bioethics 3 (1):1 – 9.
R. M. Veatch (2010). Transplanting Hearts After Death Measured by Cardiac Criteria: The Challenge to the Dead Donor Rule. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 35 (3):313-329.
F. G. Miller, R. D. Truog & D. W. Brock (2010). The Dead Donor Rule: Can It Withstand Critical Scrutiny? Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 35 (3):299-312.
D. Alan Shewmon (2004). The Dead Donor Rule: Lessons From Linguistics. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 14 (3):277-300.
Norman Fost (2004). Reconsidering the Dead Donor Rule: Is It Important That Organ Donors Be Dead? Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 14 (3):249-260.
Megan Crowley-Matoka & Robert M. Arnold (2004). The Dead Donor Rule: How Much Does the Public Care ... And How Much Should. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 14 (3):319-332.
Robert M. Veatch (2004). Abandon the Dead Donor Rule or Change the Definition of Death? Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 14 (3):261-276.
Mike Collins (2010). Reevaluating the Dead Donor Rule. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 35 (2):1-26.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2010-01-28Total downloads76 ( #10,578 of 549,037 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,261 of 549,037 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
