David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Medical Ethics 36 (10):632-634 (2010)
Although established in the law and current practice, the determination of death according to neurological criteria continues to be controversial. Some scholars have advocated return to the traditional circulatory and respiratory criteria for determining death because individuals diagnosed as ‘brain dead’ display an extensive range of integrated biological functioning with the aid of mechanical ventilation. Others have attempted to refute this stance by appealing to the analogy between decapitation and brain death. Since a decapitated animal is obviously dead, and ‘brain death’ represents physiological decapitation, brain dead individuals must be dead. In this article we refute this ‘decapitation gambit.’ We argue that decapitated animals are not necessarily dead, and that, moreover, the analogy between decapitation and the clinical syndrome of brain death is flawed
|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
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Stephen Holland, Celia Kitzinger & Jenny Kitzinger (2014). Death, Treatment Decisions and the Permanent Vegetative State: Evidence From Families and Experts. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 17 (3):413-423.
Similar books and articles
J. P. Lizza (2011). Where's Waldo? The 'Decapitation Gambit' and the Definition of Death. Journal of Medical Ethics 37 (12):743-746.
Kristin Zeiler (2009). Deadly Pluralism? Why Death-Concept, Death-Definition, Death-Criterion and Death-Test Pluralism Should Be Allowed, Even Though It Creates Some Problems. Bioethics 23 (8):450-459.
Daniel I. Wikler (1984). Conceptual Issues in the Definition of Death: A Guide for Public Policy. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 5 (2).
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.
Tom Tomlinson (1984). The Conservative Use of the Brain-Death Criterion – a Critique. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 9 (4):377-394.
Winston Chiong (2005). Brain Death Without Definitions. Hastings Center Report 35 (6):20-30.
Peter Koch (2009). An Alternative to an Alternative to Brain Death. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 83:89-98.
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.
F. Feldman, The Enigma of Death + Observations on the Concept of Definition and Analysis of the Philosophical Phenomenon of Death and Dying.
Bernard N. Schumacher (2010). Death and Mortality in Contemporary Philosophy. Cambridge University Press.
Fred Feldman (1992). Confrontations with the Reaper: A Philosophical Study of the Nature and Value of Death. Oxford University Press.
G. Khushf (2010). 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.
Franklin G. Miller Robert D. Truog (2009). The Incoherence of Determining Death by Neurological Criteria: A Commentary on Controversies in the Determination of Death , a White Paper by the President's Council on Bioethics. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 19 (2):pp. 185-193.
Jason T. Eberl (2008). Potentiality, Possibility, and the Irreversibility of Death. Review of Metaphysics 62 (1):61-77.
Added to index2010-09-13
Total downloads18 ( #216,624 of 1,934,581 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #269,381 of 1,934,581 )
How can I increase my downloads?