Neocortical Brain Death

A controversial human rights issue in modern society is the right to die, an issue that has much to do with the way that human beings relate to society at large, the notion that a man has ownership of their own body, and the obligations set forth in the Hippocratic oath and medical ethics. Physician assisted suicide, or the right to die as those in the pro-assisted suicide movement call it, divides two very different kinds of people into two camps. One’s opinion on the subject is entirely related to one’s core values. Whether one values the individual or whether one places more emphasis on the will of the majority has a great impact on one’s beliefs concerning the issue of the right to die. In this essay, I will prove

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.

A. Restatement of Thesis: Overall with current situations happening around the world Euthanasia and Assisted suicide has become a very controversial topic, however there are many interpretations that should be looked upon before deciding that huge decision.

“Is it worse to kill someone than to let someone die?” – James Rachels. At the end of the disagreement, many philosophers say euthanasia, also known as physician-assisted suicide, is a compassionate method of death. At the other side are the opponents of euthanasia, who may consider this technique as a form of murder. In this paper, I will show that it is not important to know the distinction between killing and letting die on request which is performed by a physician. Both killing and letting die on request are similar because it is based on the controversial issue called euthanasia also known as physician-assisted suicide.

There is a widely shared view that active and passive euthanasia are importantly different. It is said to be one thing (passive euthanasia) to let patients die, which may sometimes be permissible, but it is quite another (active euthanasia) to kill them, which never is. This discrimination between two forms of euthanasia has been forcefully attacked by certain philosophers on the ground that the underlying distinction between killing and letting die is either not clear or, if clear, not morally important. This paper defends that there is distinction between killing and letting die. My first argument that will defend my thesis will be based on the definition of killing or letting to die and the difference in the intentions that accompany the

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)

It is also clear that while making these decisions, the decisions ought to be made based on informed consent (Werth and Crow 195). Sometime, the patient may be experiencing dementia, clinical depression or delirium for which they may be affecting the patient’s decision making capabilities (Werth and Crow 197, 198). If such a person is allowed to make their right-to-die decision, this may be done without the patient having comprehensive information before consent and thus should not be encouraged (Werth and Crow 198).

Voluntary Euthanasia has been considered a controversial topic for many decades. The idea of committing an act that involves the taking of human life is not one that many people would care to discuss openly. The main argument is that a person who has been diagnosed with an incurable illness and is in extreme pain and their ability to move has been limited, while that person still has control over their destiney should they be allowed take their own life (Bowie, R.2001). The worldwide debate weather one should be allowed to end a life is still one of the biggest ethical issues. The attempt to providing the rights of the individual is in conflict with the moral values of society. Voluntary Euthanasia has been highly rejected by many religious and pro-life institutions.

Before taking this class I was oblivious to the apparently well-known fact that there are two standards of death. One standard is the cardiopulmonary standard, which is when the heart and lungs cease to function on their own. The second standard is the total brain death standard which is when there is complete and irreversible loss of brain function. There are people who stand in both corners of this argument but most, if not all, stand for only one standard. While the definitions of each standard seems to be clear cut, it is not, as there are some cases in which one standard will not suffice, which we will be discussing in a later paragraph. I will argue that both the

Today, the fact that euthanasia is morality or immorality permissible is a very controversial issue debated and discussed by doctors and philosophers. This point generated a controversial debate. The discussion takes into account the ethics of medical

John Finnis, in his article A Philosophical Case Against Euthanasia, provides a compelling theoretical framework through which to view contemporary discourse surrounding euthanasia. First, this paper will draw on Finnis' position in order to establish the natural law understanding of the intrinsic value of human life. It will be argued that the right to life comes from a source other than the individual who is alive, or his family or caregivers, granting it either implicitly or explicitly. It will further be argued that the individual's duty not to have oneself euthanized, or euthanize another, is not an incident of any special responsibility that one assumes or undertakes, but is a straightforward incident of an ordinary duty everyone owes his

The deliberate act of ending another 's life, given his or her consent, is formally referred to as euthanasia. At present, euthanasia is one of the most controversial social-ethical issues that we face, in that it deals with a sensitive subject matter where there is much uncertainty as to what position one ought to take. Deliberately killing another person is presumed by most rational people as a fundamental evil act. However, when that person gives his or her consent to do so, this seems to give rise to an exceptional case. This can be illustrated in the most common case of euthanasia, where the person who is willing to die suffers from an illness that causes great pain, and will result in his or her demise in the not-so-distant future.

To contrast traditional methods of defining death with modern-day definitions it is important to understand why the manners by which death is defined has changed. In short medical advancements, sociological influences, and even how one defines human life has changed our understanding of death and dying. Furthermore, although legal acts have been implemented to establish standard methods to define death, there are opposing viewpoints and legitimate concerns to these criteriums.

Some authors see that the concept or the notion of Euthanasia is too ambiguous, which can lead us to understand very different and even contradictory things. Let 's refer to it: