Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 13 (1):105-115 (2016)

Authors
L. Syd M Johnson
SUNY Upstate Medical University
Abstract
Since its inception in 1968, the concept of whole-brain death has been contentious, and four decades on, controversy concerning the validity and coherence of whole-brain death continues unabated. Although whole-brain death is legally recognized and medically entrenched in the United States and elsewhere, there is reasonable disagreement among physicians, philosophers, and the public concerning whether brain death is really equivalent to death as it has been traditionally understood. A handful of states have acknowledged this plurality of viewpoints and enacted “conscience clauses” that require “reasonable accommodation” of religious and moral objections to the determination of death by neurological criteria. This paper argues for the universal adoption of “reasonable accommodation” policies using the New Jersey statute as a model, in light of both the ongoing controversy and the recent case of Jahi McMath, a child whose family raised religious objections to a declaration of brain death. Public policies that accommodate reasonable, divergent viewpoints concerning death provide a practical and compassionate way to resolve those conflicts that are the most urgent, painful, and difficult to reconcile.
Keywords Brain death  Death  Conscientious objection  Reasonable accommodation
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s11673-015-9683-z
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 62,363
External links

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

The Foundations of Bioethics.H. Tristram Engelhardt - 1986 - Oxford University Press.
The Rational Versus the Reasonable.W. M. Sibley - 1953 - Philosophical Review 62 (4):554-560.
Brain Death - Too Flawed to Endure, Too Ingrained to Abandon.Robert D. Truog - 2007 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 35 (2):273-281.
A Defense of the Whole‐Brain Concept of Death.James L. Bernat - 1998 - Hastings Center Report 28 (2):14-23.

View all 12 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Healthcare Rationing Cutoffs and Sorites Indeterminacy.Philip M. Rosoff - 2019 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 44 (4):479-506.

View all 8 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Whole-Brain Concept of Death Remains Optimum Public Policy.James L. Bernat - 2006 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 34 (1):35-43.
Whole-Brain Death Reconsidered.A. Browne - 1983 - Journal of Medical Ethics 9 (1):28-44.
Death, Brain Death, and Ethics.David Lamb - 1985 - State University of New York Press.
Brain Death Without Definitions.Winston Chiong - 2005 - Hastings Center Report 35 (6):20-30.
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.
Analytic Philosophy And Death: Brain Death And Personal Identity.Maurizio Salvi - 1996 - Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 6 (5):123-124.
Individual Choice in the Definition of Death.A. Bagheri - 2007 - Journal of Medical Ethics 33 (3):146-149.
The Problematic Symmetry Between Brain Birth and Brain Death.D. G. Jones - 1998 - Journal of Medical Ethics 24 (4):237-242.
Epistemology of Brain Death Determination.Douglas N. Walton - 1981 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 2 (3):259-274.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2016-01-06

Total views
42 ( #253,417 of 2,445,471 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #457,259 of 2,445,471 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes