Brain Dead: A Case Study

In "What is Death? The Crisis of Criteria" Louis Pojman introduced four definitions of death and describes their benefits and limitations. The four definitions include loss of the soul, cardiopulmonary failure, whole brain death and neocortical brain death, of which the cardiopulmonary is typically most common. I intend to show, using the work of Jonathan Glover and reasoning, that the neocortical brain death definition holds significant merit and is truly more practical and ethical.

Death is an elementary word harboring many meanings. It is the feeling of being caught in the grip of inevitably. It is a personal realization that you too are mortal. It is the recognition that one's life is changed forever. The shiny image of a once bright world full of promise dulls. Unfortunately, every individual will experience the death of a loved one at least once in their life. No words can soothe the agony of losing a loved one. State legislatures are familiar with this grief and have created either a coroner system or a medical examiner system. A coroner system consists of a coroner whose responsible for identifying the decreased body, alerting the family members or anyone of close relation, signing the death certificate and

The thin line between life and death has become an ethical issue many health care providers and the government have long tried to ignore. The understanding that life begins at birth, and ends when the heartbeat and breathing have ceased has long been deemed factual. Medical technologies have changed this with respirators, artificial defibrillators, and transplants (Macionis, 2009). “Thus medical and legal experts in the United States define death as an irreversible state involving no response to stimulation, no movement or breathing, no reflexes, and no indication of brain activity” (Macionis, 2009, p. 436).

A Life or Death Situation, by Robin Marantz Henig, New York Times, July, 2013, is a review of the debate surrounding the right to a dignified death. It examines the purely philosophical view of the issue; as well as the heart wrenching reality of being faced with that question in one 's personal life. Does a person have a right to choose how he or she dies? How does that choice impact the people who care about about him or her? Should a person who cares about someone be required to cause or aide in his or her death? These questions weigh heavy on the minds of many people, who live

Criteria for declaring death using neurological criteria developed, and today a whole brain definition of death is widely used and recognized as an acceptable way to determine death. (Iltis)

Another difficulty for measuring health is that the reasons for death which are stated on a death certificate may not be true. As with the illnesses, doctors may not but the ‘real’ cause of death and may just put a ‘sugar coated’ version to avoid causing further distress to the family and friends of the deceased. An example of this could be a homeless person living on the street, the cause of death according to the death certificate could be hypothermia but the doctors may not take in to consideration that it could have been years of substance abuse, malnutrition and the lack of shelter or none at all. As well as this a doctor may interpret the cause of death from symptoms they find; this could only be only one of the reasons they put down but the ‘real’ cause could have been many.

In a more recent court decision, Carter v. Canada was a game-changer for the movement to grant Canadians the right to die with dignity. In a unanimous decision, the justices of the high court struck down on the federal prohibition on doctor-assisted dying. It was argued that the law violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Since the law regarding doctor assisted dying was created because of Carter v. Canada, the immediate and known risks associated with doctor assisted dying are being addressed and managed by establishing a strict but fair criteria for determining who can access doctor assisted dying and the safeguards that are in place to safely administer it. To meet the criteria, he/she must be a competent adult, clearly consent to the termination of life, have a grievous and irremediable medical condition, and experience enduring suffering that is intolerable in the circumstances of his or her condition. Doctors are required to use their knowledge, skill and judgement to assess an individual’s aptness for doctor assisted death, in conjunction with the above-mentioned criteria. We must recognize that within these criteria are sub-criteria’s and there are many steps to this procedure.

When a patient is terminally ill or is experiencing extreme pain, often Euthanasia or Assisted Suicide can both be plausible options to end any suffering. Euthanasia is currently legalized in seven countries and parts of the United States (New Health Guide). This number is not likely to increase soon because of the high controversy, which is due to the very serious topic of this matter: a person 's life. The general process of these medical methods is usually understood as a doctor somehow deliberately causing the death of a patient or helping with their suicide. Many believe that it is unethical and violates laws, oaths, and more. Though people believe this, it is truly unethical to not give a person a choice in the manner in which they will perish.

The right-to-die movement is spreading across the United States. Right-to-die refers to issues that involve the decisions of an individual to be allowed to die, when they could survive on life support or in a diminished state. This also allows for terminally ill people to refuse life support and/or die with dignity (Right to Die, n.d.). With this movement has come many legal issues. In 1976, the US court system dealt with its first case of right-to-die decisions with in re Quinlan (How the ‘Right to Die’ Came to America, n.d.). There have since been a few stand out cases, like Terri Schiavo and Brittany Maynard, that have helped to pave the way for others who would like to exercise death with dignity. Some cases have also been argued as violations

Determining the value of one’s life is purely subjective and can only be done on an individual basis, therefore prohibiting terminal patients from considering a death with dignity is an unfair extension of pain and suffering. Physician assisted death should be regulated so that all qualifying patients will have the opportunity to die with dignity if they so wish.

In the medical world, we are sometimes placed into situations with an undesirable outcome. The least desirable outcome imaginable to being pronounced dead, or in our scenario, being labeled “brain dead”. Being classified as brain dead, is not an easy diagnosis to be made, and is defined as “irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead.” Throughout the course of assessing the articles provided, we learned about a patient by the name of Jahi McMath who had tonsillectomy performed at the Children’s Hospital Oakland. Upon entering the procedure, the family was told the procedure was considered normal. Unfortunately, approximately thirty minutes after the procedure, Jahi begin to experience

Active euthanasia should be permitted as a medical treatment to allow people the right to die with dignity without pain and in peace. Euthanasia, also known as assisted suicide or mercy killing, takes on many different forms. When most Americans think of euthanasia, they think of a specific form that is referred to as “active euthanasia” which means to actively do something that will end a patient’s life with or without that individual’s consent. When euthanasia is performed in an involuntary manner it is usually because the patient is comatose, unconscious, or otherwise unable to communicate whether or not they want to have their life prolonged through artificial means. In such cases, the physician makes an

Whether murder is done in a peaceful, non painful way or in a very gruesome, unimaginable way, it is still considered murder. Physicians have no way of knowing ‘what is best for the patient’ especially if that patient’s terminal illness prevents them from speaking.

These questions are difficult for any of us to answer - even more so if we are dealing with a situation in which we may have to answer one or more of these questions. Yet, for some of us, these questions are all too real. If someone is considered to be in a vegetative state and the doctor determines that they are not

Euthanasia, which is also referred to as mercy killing, is the act of ending someone’s life either passively or actively, usually for the purpose of relieving pain and suffering. “All forms of euthanasia require an intention to accelerate death in order to benefit patients experiencing a poor quality of life” (Sayers, 2005). It is a highly controversial subject that often leaves a person with mixed emotions and beliefs. Opinions regarding this topic hinge on the health and mental state of the victim as well as method of death. It raises legal issues as well as the issue of morals and ethics. Euthanasia is divided into two different categories, passive euthanasia and active euthanasia. “There are unavoidable uncertainties in both active and