Hastings Center Report 35 (6):20-30 (2005)
Abstract: Most of the world now accepts the idea, first proposed four decades ago, that death means "brain death." But the idea has always been open to criticism because it doesn't square with all of our intuitions about death. In fact, none of the possible definitions of death quite works. Death, perhaps surprisingly, eludes definition, and "brain death" can be accepted only as a refinement of what is in fact a fuzzy concept
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
References found in this work
No references found.
Citations of this work
Transplant Thought-Experiments: Two Costly Mistakes in Discounting Them.Simon Beck - 2014 - South African Journal of Philosophy 33 (2):189-199.
Reevaluating the Dead Donor Rule.Mike Collins - 2010 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 35 (2):1-26.
Similar books and articles
Current Debate on the Ethical Issues of Brain Death.Masahiro Morioka - 2004 - Proceedings of International Congress on Ethical Issues in Brain Death and Organ Transplantation:57-59.
Reconsidering Brain Death: A Lesson From Japan's Fifteen Years of Experience.Masahiro Morioka - 2001 - Hastings Center Report 31 (4):41-46.
Death, Brain Death, and the Limits of Science: Why the Whole-Brain Concept of Death Is a Flawed Public Policy.Mike Nair-Collins - 2010 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 38 (3):667-683.
Clarifying the Discussion on Brain Death.T. Forcht Dagi & Rebecca Kaufman - 2001 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 26 (5):503 – 525.
Are Recent Defences of the Brain Death Concept Adequate?Ari Joffe - 2010 - Bioethics 24 (2):47-53.