The Curveball Case: The Most Rational Denotation Of Death

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.

After declaring Jahi McMath brain dead, the doctors at the Children’s Hospital ordered her to be taken off mechanical ventilation. Her mother, Latasha Winkfield, refused to accept that her daughter was dead and incapable of recovering (du Toit & Miller, 2016). Winkfield believed her daughter was still alive because McMath was breathing and her heart was still beating (du Toit & Miller, 2016). McMath’s family disagreed with the doctors’ report and filed a lawsuit to prevent life support from being discontinued (Paola, 2014).

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

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

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

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, Western culture surrounding the end of one’s life is strongly rooted in Cartesian thinking. Nowhere is the split between mind and body more present than in the legal definitions surrounding brain death. In the essay “Our Neo-Cartesian Bodies in Parts”, Hacking writes that when a person is declared to be brain dead, all that remains is “a body kept going by chemistry and mechanics” (248). This is the idea that a person’s body can remain seemingly alive even though the mind has long since ceased to be conscious. This is accepted, both legally and culturally, because Western culture is comfortable with the notion that the consciousness, or “soul”, of a person is located singularly in the brain.

We have to learn to balance the spectrum for the quality and quantity of life. Next, we have to discuss the biblical, theological, and cultural perspectives on end of life issues. Then, we will view potential impact on afterlife outcomes. Also, we will discuss variables involved in potential life trajectories. Finally, we will discuss challenges of integrated personal preferences and public policy in end of life standards and

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

A. Each week in America, paramedics arrive on the scene of an accident where the victim has crossed the barrier between life and death. There is no heartbeat. Breathing has stopped. All the vital signs of life are absent. But the paramedics do not accept this death as final. They begin CPR; perhaps inject a drug that stimulates the heart. For a few frantic moments, nothing happens. Then, the victim begins to cough, taking a few ragged breaths, and the heart begins to beat, pulsing life through the body. And instead of sending a corpse to the morgue, the ambulance takes a patient to the hospital. Was the victim dead? Without getting too theological or technical, we would have to answer, yes. If not for the expert care of the paramedics, the

" What is meant, I think, is that there is a continuation of consciousness after biological death. This claim is certainly debatable, but it is not self-contradictory unless one asks the

There is no right or wrong in my development of this position on how death is defined. I also, understand that by presenting a different way to define death, I am not quite able to support either definition presented in Bioethics and the Brain. Using the criteria that when the soul leaves the physical body is guided by faith and not science. Taking this approach, I stress my belief that no man determines the moment of death; God always designs it. For practical purposes and logically, I get that I must connect the concept of the soul leaving the body to science so as to attempt to acknowledge the moment a person dies. I believe I can say that the soul would have left the body when the whole body, and all its functions stop from a physiological perspective. No biological functions working, therefore no psychological functions working. This means that I am not persuaded by Glasson’s first definition dependent on whole brain criteria. I am more inclined to agree with the idea of irreversible essential biological function. It makes more sense to me that with no biological function there is no psychological function-nothing works therefore a person is

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.

There have been debates about this issue as to what is the true definition of brain death. The current legal definition requires the irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain or the irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions while Islam have also expressed support for this definition of death, assuming it is supported by scientific evidence (Rady, 2014, p.1). However, doubts still remains as it has not yet ascertained about the criterion to determine brain death. Therefore, the vagueness and ambiguities in the definition and criteria of death have compelled scholars to re-address the moral permissibility of organ donation in Abrahamic religions, like Islam (Rady, 2014,