A Matter of Respect: A Defense of the Dead Donor Rule and of a "Whole-Brain" Criterion for Determination of Death
Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 35 (3):330-364 (2010)
| Abstract | Many accounts of the historical development of neurological criteria for determination of death insufficiently distinguish between two strands of interpretation advanced by advocates of a "whole-brain" criterion. One strand focuses on the brain as the organ of integration. Another provides a far more complex and nuanced account, both of death and of a policy on the determination of death. Current criticisms of the whole-brain criterion are effective in refuting the first interpretation, but not the second, which is advanced in the 2008 President's Council report on the determination of death. In this essay, I seek to further develop this second strand of interpretation. I argue that policy on determination of death aligns moral, biological, and ontological death concepts. Morally, death marks the stage when respect is no longer owed. Biologically, death concerns integrated functioning of an organism as a whole. But the biological concepts are underdetermined. The moral concerns lead to selection of strong individuality concepts rather than weak ones. They also push criteria to the "far side" of the dying process. There is a countervailing consideration associated with optimizing the number of available organs, and this pushes to the "near side" of death. Policy is governed by a conviction that it is possible to align these moral and biological death concepts, but this conviction simply lays out an agenda. There is also a prescription—integral to the dead donor rule—that lexically prioritizes the deontic concerns and that seeks to balance the countervailing tendencies by using science-based refinements to make the line between life and death more precise. After showing how these concerns have been effectively aligned in the current policy, I present a modified variant of a "division" scenario and show how an "inverse decapitation problem" leads to a conclusive refutation of the nonbrain account of death | |||||||||
| 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: 5,875 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesMegan 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.
Albert Garth Thomas (2012). Continuing the Definition of Death Debate: The Report of the President's Council on Bioethics on Controversies in the Determination of Death. Bioethics 26 (2):101-107.
Laura A. Siminoff, Christopher Burant & Stuart J. Youngner (2004). Death and Organ Procurement: Public Beliefs and Attitudes. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 14 (3):217-234.
Douglas N. Walton (1981). Epistemology of Brain Death Determination. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 2 (3):259-274.
Tom Tomlinson (1984). The Conservative Use of the Brain-Death Criterion – a Critique. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 9 (4):377-394.
Hans-Martin Sass (1992). Criteria for Death: Self-Determination and Public Policy. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 17 (4):445-454.
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.
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.
Mike Collins (2010). Reevaluating the Dead Donor Rule. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 35 (2):1-26.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2010-07-27Total downloads15 ( #79,731 of 556,895 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,931 of 556,895 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
