Indicators Of Human Hood Summary

There is survival after death where the death becomes parts of the soul and the body.

viii. Brain Death must be established- person must cease having neurons firing in the neuro system

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.

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

Life, the existence of an individual human being. All humans have the desire to “exist” as one would say, to become influential in this world. But is it not possible to exist once one is gone? Famous film director Alfred Hitchcock argues that characters are more important dead than alive. In this life, in order to become important or even cared about, one must die. Death has become the key to success because everyone misses those who are gone. Literary work such as Macbeth, A Lesson Before Dying, Are You Worth More Dead Than Alive? and, How the King of Pop Made 1.5 Million, have proven that not only characters but humans hold more value once they are dead.

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).

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)

A patient is lying on a hospital bed hooked up to several machines regulating his bodily functions. The doctor has informed the family that the patient is brain dead. His spouse makes the decision to pull the plug but his mother argues against it. It is the mothers opinion that her son is still alive, and deserves to be treated like a person, even though his brain is no longer functioning. The spouse holds the opinion that any trace of her loved one has left with the death of his brain and only his body remains. Suddenly, both remember the patients wishes to not be sustained on life support, and they collectively decide to pull the plug. This example illustrates the central debate

A position of simply defining death as the permanent loss of consciousness was a potential position, which was then refuted. How can one be completely sure of true loss of consciousness? Singer replies to this case by referencing Dr. Margaret de Campo, and the new technologies

Active euthanasia is a subject that is raising a lot of concern in today’s society on whether or not it should be legalized and under what circumstances should it be allowed. This is a very tricky subject due to its ability to be misused and abused. There are a wide variety of things that need to be considered when it comes to who should be allowed to request active euthanasia such as, is it an autonomous choice, do they have a terminal illness, is their quality of life dramatically decreased, and are they in pain and suffering. Both James Rachel and Daniel Callahan have very different opinions on active euthanasia and whether or not it should be allowed. However both authors manage to provide a substantial argument on where they stand regarding active euthanasia.

Upon further examination, standards published in 1968 suggest that brain death (aka "whole-brain") involves four essential criteria:

As an administrator I would need to take into consideration the patient’s autonomy, autonomy is recognizing an individual’s right to make his/her own decisions about what is best for them regarding their health care (Pozgar, 2012). The patient’s rights always should be considered before any decisions are made by any other family members. In this scenario it is clear that the patient is unable to make any decisions, the patient has suffered a serious brain damage, and although it is not complete brain death, we must determine how to proceed.

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.

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

Some would choose to declare that every human being is both a body and a mind. Both being gelled together until death, than having the mind go on to exist and the body being lifeless. A person lives throughout two collateral histories, one having to do with what happens to the body and in it, and the other being what happens in and to the mind. What happens to the body is public and what happens to the mind is private. The events which reply to the body consist of the physical world, and the events of the mind consist of the mental world.