David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Bioethics 9 (2):91–126 (1995)
The dominant conception of brain death as the death of the whole brain constitutes an unstable compromise between the view that a person ceases to exist when she irreversibly loses the capacity for consciousness and the view that a human organism dies only when it ceases to function in an integrated way. I argue that no single criterion of death captures the importance we attribute both to the loss of the capacity for consciousness and to the loss of functioning of the organism as a whole. This is because the person or self is one thing and the human organism is another. We require a separate account of death for each. Only if we systematically distinguish between persons and human organisms will we be able to provide plausible accounts both of the conditions of our ceasing to exist and of when it is that we begin to exist. This paper, in short, argues for a form of mind-body dualism and draws out some of its implications for various practical moral problems.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
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
W. R. Carter (1984). Death and Bodily Transfiguration. Mind 93 (371):412-418.
W. R. Carter (1982). Do Zygotes Become People? Mind 91 (361):77-95.
Mark Johnston (1987). Human Beings. Journal of Philosophy 84 (February):59-83.
Warren Quinn (1984). Abortion: Identity and Loss. Philosophy and Public Affairs 13 (1):24-54.
Citations of this work BETA
Martha J. Farah & Andrea S. Heberlein (2007). Personhood and Neuroscience: Naturalizing or Nihilating? American Journal of Bioethics 7 (1):37-48.
Jeff Mcmahan (1996). Cognitive Disability, Misfortune, and Justice. Philosophy and Public Affairs 25 (1):3–35.
James L. Bernat (2006). The Whole-Brain Concept of Death Remains Optimum Public Policy. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 34 (1):35-43.
J. L. Bernat (2010). How the Distinction Between "Irreversible" and "Permanent" Illuminates Circulatory-Respiratory Death Determination. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 35 (3):242-255.
Similar books and articles
Ronald E. Cranford & Barbara Killpatrick (1981). Tests in the Diagnosis of Brain Death: The Role of the Radioisotope Brain Scan. Bioethics Quarterly 3:67-72.
Kazumasa Hoshino (1993). Legal Status of Brain Death in Japan: Why Many Japanese Do Not Accept "Brain Death" as a Definition of Death. Bioethics 7 (2-3):234-238.
Douglas N. Walton (1981). Epistemology of Brain Death Determination. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 2 (3):259-274.
Masahiro Morioka (2001). Reconsidering Brain Death: A Lesson From Japan's Fifteen Years of Experience. Hastings Center Report 31 (4):41-46.
Mike Nair-Collins (2010). Death, Brain Death, and the Limits of Science: Why the Whole-Brain Concept of Death Is a Flawed Public Policy. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 38 (3):667-683.
Winston Chiong (2005). Brain Death Without Definitions. Hastings Center Report 35 (6):20-30.
Ari Joffe (2010). Are Recent Defences of the Brain Death Concept Adequate? Bioethics 24 (2):47-53.
Peter Koch (2009). An Alternative to an Alternative to Brain Death. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 83:89-98.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads190 ( #5,458 of 1,700,300 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #105,649 of 1,700,300 )
How can I increase my downloads?