Define Death Definition

They used a hard vocabulary to contain the terrible softness. Greased they 'd say. Offed, lit up, zapped while zipping. It wasn 't cruelty, just stage presence. They were actors. When someone died, it wasn 't quite dying, because in a curious way, it seemed scripted, and because they had their lines mostly memorized, irony mixed with tragedy, and because they called it by other names, as if to encyst and destroy the reality of death itself. "

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 made up by multiple concepts, which include, universality, irreversibility, nonfunctionality, causality, and personal mortality. Universality refers to the fact that all living things must eventually die since death is inevitable. Irreversibility remarks that death is irrevocable and final. Therefore, no organism that experiences death can come back to life. Nonfunctionality emphasizes the fact that death implies the cessation of physiological functions. Once a person dies, all the capabilities and functions the body has come to an ending. Causality highlights that there are biological reasons for death that can be internal and external. Internal causes of heath include diseases and external reasons can often be associated with physical trauma. Personal mortality is the last component and it is closely related to universality. It addresses the understanding that one must die as all living things eventually do.

Louis Pojman and Roland Puccetti took the position that neocortical brain death was the best definition of death. Many implications resulted from this, including views on assisted death and organ transplant. Would this lead to a slippery slope regarding what death was? Would this lead to an increase in organs available for donation? These are only some of the implications that arose from Pojman and Puccetti’s position. Looking at the neocortical brain death position versus the biologically integrative whole brain position allowed for judgement on which definition had better merit. I will argue that the biological whole brain position is more inconsistent in regards to application. As such, I will take the position of advocating for the

materialistic-biological concept views an acceptable death to be one that is sudden and pain-less (Campione, 2004). Lastly, those who believe in the personalistic concept of death view it as tolerable when there is hope of not dying (Campione, 2004).

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)

According to (Liming & Dickenson 2011., p.3) “thanatology is the study of dying, death, and bereavement.” I believe that the study of death will be a topic to be discussed and forever researched. There are many different aspects of death that I believe people can study, rather it be cultural believes, medically researching different processes of death, or even just what your own personal discovery of what death exactly is or what happens after death. No one can interview the dead. No one can find out if death is peaceful, or if there is life after death, or what death feels like. So for this topic of defining thanatology I wanted to look at the studies of peoples near death experiences, interviews from people who are experiencing death, the different cultures behind viewing death, and lastly the communication skills needed for health care professionals to develop in order to discuss death and dying amongst the patient and their family

McMahan 's The Metaphysics of Brain Death presents a case for the distinction between the body as the organism and the mind as the person. In defining this “mind-body dualism” (sec. 0, abstract), McMahan 's distinction brings forth a greater implication in the criterion for the death of a person, exploring the “dominant conception of brain death” which reasons that the loss of capacity for consciousness, caused by irreversible damage to the whole brain or brain stem, is sufficient for such a declaration as a persons ceasing to live (sec. 1, pars. 1-3). McMahan does not oppose the argument of brain death on the grounds of capacity for consciousness, but rather uses this to present that “the death of the entire brain is not equivalent to

Firstly, Lock establishes what the general definitions are for each culture. While North Americans focus on the physical brain state to indicate the time of one’s death, the Japanese understand death as having an element

Traditionally death was defined with the heart-lung criterion which referred to cardio-respiratory death. The lower brain is what controls respiration therefore the destruction of the brainstem causes loss of all cardio-respiratory vital signs and so death ensues. In 1981, a new definition arose which was labelled as Whole Brain Death. It is defined as an individual being declared dead, despite continuing functional vital signs. (Pojman, pp. 102) There is no consciousness, no control of brainstem reflexes, and a loss of cognitive functions. The individual’s survival is dependent on artificial mechanisms that are provided by doctors. This newer definition was created due to modern technology being able to revive someone who is cardio-respiratory

In Christianity, death is thought to be the point at which the soul leaves its earthly body and the soul is at rest until

The definition of death is another issue paramount to this discussion. Robert Rakestraw, professor of theology at Bethel Theological Seminary in his article on this very subject

One thing that ponders almost all who live is what happens after one dies. There are multiple theories about life after death, or the absence of it, many dependent on one’s religious beliefs. However, this is also a question philosophers have faced and come up with theories for. Bertrand Russell, a well-known philosopher from the twentieth century, has a theory on the matter. His theory on life after death, in standard form, is as follows: There is a strong correlation between brain states and mental states. In particular, the correlation between brain damage and impairment in mental capacity. So, probably all the mental states and capacities that we associate with a particular person are ontologically dependent on the continued functioning of that individual 's brain. So, if one 's brain ceases to function, then one 's mind ceases, as well. If you survive death, then your mind must survive. But, brain functioning ceases with death. Therefore, you will not survive death (Zelinski “On”). The argument is valid but some question whether it is sound. Russell 's argument is sound because the third premise, if one’s brain ceases to function, then one’s mind ceases to function, is true; the fifth premise, brain functioning ceases with death, is also true; that all leads to the conclusion, your mind will not survive death, being true.

“Metaphorically, death is the portal between the land of the living and the land of the dead the bridge over the Styx” (Benatar, 177). Death may not be part of a person’s lifetime but it can constitute a small part of that. Unlike dying, the death’s time is uncertain. “It is not clear that it takes time, or if so, how much time it takes” (Benatar, 177). Being dead is a process that cannot be experienced. It also comes after death. Rosenbaum states that knowing these concepts helps us understand Epicurus’s argument and it helps us notice the “ambiguous use of the term death which embody rhetorically, but not logically, persuasive ways of insinuating the falsity of Epicurus’s view” (Benatar, 177).

The abstract idea of life cannot be explained by such simple ideas as being animated, breathing, or speaking. Ordinary machines in this century can perform all of these basic functions. The quandary with defining death is not as abstract and elusive as that of life. The problem of defining life and death has plagued philosophers and the religious bodies for thousands of years for one reason; each philosophy or religion has tried to define the meaning of life and death from only their certain perspective. The seemingly appropriate approach to this problem would be to understand the ideas presented in various philosophies and religions and through this knowledge create a new definition for each idea of life