Deadly pluralism? Why death-concept, death-definition, death-criterion and death-test pluralism should be allowed, even though it creates some problems
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Bioethics 23 (8):450-459 (2009)
Death concept, death definition, death criterion and death test pluralism has been described by some as a problematic approach. Others have claimed it to be a promising way forward within modern pluralistic societies. This article describes the New Jersey Death Definition Law and the Japanese Transplantation Law. Both of these laws allow for more than one death concept within a single legal system. The article discusses a philosophical basis for these laws starting from John Rawls' understanding of comprehensive doctrines, reasonable pluralism and overlapping consensus. It argues for the view that a certain legal pluralism in areas of disputed metaphysical, philosophical and/or religious questions should be allowed, as long as the disputed questions concern the individual and the resulting policy, law or acts based on the policy/law, do not harm the lives of other individuals to an intolerable extent. However, while this death concept, death definition, death criterion and death test pluralism solves some problems, it creates others.
|Keywords||metaphysics Japan death New Jersey Rawls pluralism|
|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
Andre-Jean Arnaud (1998). From Limited Realism to Plural Law. Normative Approach Versus Cultural Perspective. Ratio Juris 11 (3):246-258.
Masaji Chiba (1998). Other Phases of Legal Pluralism in the Contemporary World. Ratio Juris 11 (3):228-245.
Amir Halevy (2001). Beyond Brain Death? Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 26 (5):493 – 501.
I. H. Kerridge (2002). Death, Dying and Donation: Organ Transplantation and the Diagnosis of Death. Journal of Medical Ethics 28 (2):89.
George Khushf (2006). Owning Up to Our Agendas: On the Role and Limits of Science in Debates About Embryos and Brain Death. Journal of Law, Medicine
Ethics 34 (1):58-76.
Citations of this work BETA
Sarah Hansen (2012). Terri Schiavo and the Language of Biopolitics. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 5 (1):91-112.
Similar books and articles
Shelly Kagan (2012). Death. Yale University Press.
John P. Lizza (2005). Potentiality, Irreversibility, and Death. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 30 (1):45 – 64.
Ari Joffe (2010). Are Recent Defences of the Brain Death Concept Adequate? Bioethics 24 (2):47-53.
Winston Chiong (2005). Brain Death Without Definitions. Hastings Center Report 35 (6):20-30.
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 and Ethics 38 (3):667-683.
Tom Tomlinson (1984). The Conservative Use of the Brain-Death Criterion – a Critique. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 9 (4):377-394.
Masahiro Morioka (2001). Reconsidering Brain Death: A Lesson From Japan's Fifteen Years of Experience. Hastings Center Report 31 (4):41-46.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads58 ( #32,287 of 1,410,123 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #75,884 of 1,410,123 )
How can I increase my downloads?