Skip to main content
Log in

A Defense of Brain Death

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Neuroethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In 1959 two French neurologists, Pierre Mollaret and Maurice Goullon, coined the term coma dépassé to designate a state beyond coma. In this state, patients are not only permanently unconscious; they lack the endogenous drive to breathe, as well as brainstem reflexes, indicating that most of their brain has ceased to function. Although legally recognized in many countries as a criterion for death, brain death has not been universally accepted by bioethicists, by the medical community, or by the public. I this paper, I defend brain death as a biological concept. I challenge two assumptions in the brain death literature that have shaped the debate and have stood in the way of an argument for brain death as biological. First, I challenge the dualism established in the debate between the body and the brain. Second, I contest the emphasis on consciousness, which prevents the inclusion of psychological phenomena into a biological criterion of death. I propose that the term organism should apply both to the functioning of the body and the brain. I argue that the cessation of the organism as a whole should take into account three elements of integrated function. Those three elements are: 1) the loss of integrated bodily function; 2) the loss of psychophysical integration required for processing of external stimuli and those required for behavior; and, 3) the loss of integrated psychological function, such as memory, learning, attention, and so forth. The loss of those three elements of integrated function is death.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Bernat et al. [27] establish the paradigm for the discussion of death, and distinguish between the definition of death, the criteria for death, and the tests performed at the bedside to determine whether an individual has died. Currently there are two criteria for death, the cardiopulmonary criterion that requires the end of circulation and respiration and the whole-brain death criterion that requires the cessation of function of the entire brain. The cardiopulmonary criterion has been universally accepted as an instantiation of the biological definition of death, but there is still controversy about whether the brain death criterion fulfills the biological definition of death. In this paper, I focus on the question whether the whole-brain death criterion fulfills the biological definition of death and I use the phrases ‘definition of death’ and ‘conception of death’ interchangeably to designate the biological definition of death.

  2. In a most recent case in Reno, Nevada, the parents of a young man who had been declared brain dead in St. Mary’s Regional Hospital challenged the removal of his ventilator and IV tube. Although a county court ruled that the ventilator and IV tube should be removed, the Nevada Supreme Court in November 2015 overturned that ruling [28].

  3. My brief description of mind and body dualism in this section is included to aid the readers’ understanding of this view as it appears in the brain-death literature; a review of the vast literature in philosophy of mind on this topic is outside of the scope of this paper.

  4. My argument does not rely on there being elements of psychological integration that can actually exist in the absence of the abilities to perceive external stimuli and behave. It might be that most of our psychology requires some degree of psychophysical integration. I contend only that one can distinguish three discrete elements of biological function even if no individual can have integrated psychological function without some degree of psychophysical integration.

References

  1. Beecher, Henry. 1968. A definition of irreversible coma. Report of the Ad Hoc committee of the Harvard medical school to examine the definition of brain death. Journal of the American Medical Association 205: 337–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Wijdicks, Elco F.M. 2002. Brain death worldwide: accepted fact but no global consensus in diagnostic criteria. Neurology 58: 20–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. President’s Commission, for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research. 1981. Defining death: medical, legal, and ethical issues in the determination of death. Washington: US Government Printing Office.

  4. The Presidents Council on Bioethics. 2008. Controversies in the determination of death. Washington: US Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Truog, Robert. 2007. Brain death: too flawed to endure, too ingrained to abandon. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 35: 273–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Halevy, Amir, and Baruch Brody. 1993. Brain death: reconciling definitions, criteria, and tests. Annals of Internal Medicine 119: 519–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Shewmon, D. Alan. 1998. Chronic “brain death”: meta-analysis and conceptual consequences. Neurology 51: 1538–1545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Shewmon, D. Alan. 2004. The critical organ for the organism as a whole: lessons from the lowly spinal cord. In In: brain death and disorders of consciousness, ed. C. Machado and D.A. Shewmon, 23–42. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Green, See, B. Michael, and Daniel Wikler. 1980. Brain death and personal identity. Philosophy and Public Affairs 9(2): 105–133.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Lizza, John P. 2006. Persons, humanity, and the definition of death. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Veatch, Robert M. 2005. The death of whole-brain death: the plague of the disaggregators, somaticists, and mentalists. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 30: 353–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. McMahan, Jeff. 1995. The metaphysics of brain death. Bioethics 9(2): 91–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Shewmon, D. Alan. 2010. Constructing the death elephant: a synthetic paradigm shift for definition, criteria, and tests for death. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 35: 256–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bernat, James L. 2006. The whole-brain concept of death remains optimum public policy. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 34: 35–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Rosenthal, David M. 1986. Two concepts of consciousness. Philosophical Studies 94(3): 329–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hill Christopher, S. 2005. Ow! the paradox of pain. In In pain: new essays on its nature and the methodology of its study, ed. Aydede Murat, 75–98. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Dehaene, Stanislas. 2014. Consciousness and the brain: deciphering how the brain codes our thoughts, 47–88. Viking Press.

  18. 20. For more on coma, vegetative states, and minimally conscious states, see Laureys, Steven, Adrian M. Owen, and Nicholas D. Schiff. Brain function in coma, vegetative states, and related disorders. The Lancet, Neurology 3:537–546.

  19. Owen, Adrian M., et al. 2006. Detecting awareness in the vegetative state. Science 313: 1402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Owen, Adrian M., and Martin R. Coleman. 2008. Functional neuroimaging of the vegetative state. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience 9: 235–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Monti, Martin M., Audrey Vanhaudenhuse, et al. 2010. Willful modulation of brain activity in disorders of consciousness. The New England Journal of Medicine 362(7): 579–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Monti, Martin M., John D. Pickard, and Adrian M. Owen. 2013. Visual cognition in disorders of consciousness: from V1 to Top-down attention. Human Brain Mapping 34: 1245–1253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Naci, Lorina, Rhodri Cusack, Mimma Anello, and Adrian M. Owen. 2014. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111(39): 14277–14282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Cruse, Damian, Srivas Chennu, Camille Chatelle, et al. 2011. Bedside detection of awareness in the vegetative state: a cohort study. Lancet 378: 2088–2094.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Du, Bo, Aijun Shan, Yujuan Zhang, et al. 2014. Zolpidem arouses patients in vegetative state after brain injury: quantitative evaluation and indications. The American Journal of the Medical Sciences 347(3): 178–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Machado, Calixto, Mario Estevez, Rafael Rodriguez, et al. 2014. Zolpidem arousing effect in persistent vegetative state patients: autonomic, EEG and behavioral assessment. Current Pharmaceutical Design 20: 4185–4202.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Bernat, James L., Charles M. Culver, and Bernard Gert. 1981. On the definition and criterion of death. Annals of Internal Medicine 94: 389–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Klugman, Craig. 2015. The bell tolls for death by neurologic criteria: Aden Hailu. Bioethics.net Blog. http://www.bioethics.net/2015/12/the-bell-tolls-for-death-by-neurologic-criteria-aden-hailu/. Accessed 18 Dec 2015.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nada Gligorov.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gligorov, N. A Defense of Brain Death. Neuroethics 9, 119–127 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-016-9252-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-016-9252-0

Keywords

Navigation