Whole Brain Death

The act of exchanging lives can be a very dangerous thing. For example, shooting an armed intruder. The debate of saving a life but taking another in the process is complicated and quite interesting. People may not see the connection at first, but that argument is linked to the ethical issue of therapeutic cloning. Therapeutic cloning is the copying of body parts or genetic material through an embryo for medical usage. It kills the unborn offspring in order to help a living human being, who is having some type of problem in their body. It can have many benefits to helping the living, but has disadvantages to the unborn. The question is which one matters the most.

What is brain death? Physicians and other health care professional have often accepted that a person is deceased when his or her brain is dead. Although the widespread use of mechanical ventilators and other advanced critical care services have transformed the course of terminal neurologic disorders. Through the advancements in medicine and technology, vital signs

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

Death is diagnosed when the permanent ending of vital processes in an individual or organism takes place. In order for health care professionals to validate that death has occurred, the U.S.A implements mandatory protocol regarding the method by which patients are to be assessed. Due to widespread philosophies concerning death, various cultures around the world possess contrasting beliefs about the body and the classifications of death. Accordingly, the article “When is a patient dead? It may depend on which doctor makes the call,” analyzes the cultural perceptions surrounding standards North American hospitals practice to verify the presence of brain death. Despite the revised regulations to avoid future mishaps, Western hospitals are still

However, the number of people who have received one of these lifesaving organs represents only a minor percentage compared to the amount of patients who are still waiting. As the successes of organ transplants have brought relief to some people, it has also brought up some new issues. Considering that the process of organ transplantation had become perhaps the most successful treatment for a significant range of illnesses, more patients are in need of this procedure. The issue reaches beyond the surgery room and the doctor’s capability of achieving a successful and effective surgery. The problem, however, grounds on the critical shortage of donor organs. The escalation of the mortality rate among the patients in hope of an organ donation is due to the scarcity of organs. Since there are not enough donor organs to match the demand, patients often have to wait, in many cases, a deadly period of time. The increasing difficulty of meeting the supply and demand of donor organs had led to create an organ allocation system with questionable

In an era of constant technology change, it is not unusual for technology to overcome medical, social and legal commonplaces. One instance of this is the legal standard for determining biological death. Advances in medical techniques and equipment have made it necessary to re-evaluate traditional legal standards for declaring a human being dead. Such standards are necessary not because of death itself, but because of the effect in the law of the biological fact of death. Criminal law outlaws murder for the protection of

There have been, for many years, a number of social, legal and ethical questions raised regarding organ donation and transplantation. However, as the science of medicine has developed over the years, so have patient care needs, the practice of medicine itself, and the laws implemented by the governments of various countries. Naturally, many of the ethical issues that face society, scientists, and doctors change, and therefore require careful scrutiny. Whilst the progression of scientific knowledge, technology and techniques have solved many of these ethical problems, a number of these issues still persist because medicine has not yet provided a solution or because society is reluctant to accept the solutions that have been suggested (Diethelm,

death should cease to be the moment at which the human heart stops beating, or the brain stops

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.

Jahi McMath is a 13-year-old girl living in Oakland, CA who was declared brain dead by multiple neurologists more than three months ago. Jahi was declared brain-dead December 12th after barriers during surgery a few days earlier to remove her tonsils, adenoids, and uvula at Children's Hospital & Research Center Oakland. At least three neurologists confirmed that Jahi was unable to breathe on her own, had no blood flow to her brain, and had no sign of electrical activity in her brain. Moreover, a court order kept Jahi's body on a ventilator while independent experts could be brought in to confirm the results (Wells, 2014). Even so, the McMath family was able to secure the

Human life is an extremely delicate balance to maintain, but through research the knowledge of medicine that increased through the decades that has helped improve lives. In the 18th century the life expectancy was 30 years old due to poor health, and it has more than double due to the advancements of the medical community. In the recent past, individuals that had a death sentence due to organ failure are now living past these disease associated with organ failure through the use of organ transplantation. Individuals can gain a much needed life change through a couple different routes such as from a living donor to living donor or through deceased donor to living donor. However, these changes in medicine have raised multiple ethical issue involved when dealing with organ donation such as the presumed consent (opting out system) or requested consent (opting in system), the compensation for organ donations and there are religious and cultural norms that the

The need for organs. I learned while reading this passage four people researched to find a resolution. One of the researchers Madhay Goyal, Ravindra Mehta, Lawrence Schneiderman, and Ashwini Sehgal studied 305 residents from different countries. They asked some of the participants to rate their health before and after the removal of the organ. These three points will provide some more in depth details. The problem of exploitation and consent, The shortage of donated organs and Altruism or Justice.

Millions of people all over the world die each year due to organ failure; however, doctors have found a way to remedy this issue through organ donation, a process in which a person gives up a working organ to a patient in need. A few of the most common transplants performed are kidneys, livers, and lungs: donors may include both the living and the deceased. This process requires major, extensive testing and long periods of searching for organ matches. Medical professionals and ordinary citizens from all over the world argue whether people should receive a financial compensation for the donation of organs. Some people believe the donation process should be done simply because of moral values, while others feel organ donation should be rewarded in some form. Meanwhile, many people are dying due to a lack of available organs as this issue is being disputed. Because organ donation has become such a dire issue in the medical world, society has to institute a new method of saving lives.

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:

Imagine if a new procedure were developed that could lead not only to a cure for cancer, but would provide an unlimited source of organ donors and could lead to the first effective treatment of nerve damage. Now adding to this scenario, imagine our government was taking action to ban this new procedure because of a few myths and exaggerations. This scenario is true and is taking place with human cloning at this very moment. If action is not taken, this crowning achievement of medical science could be lost forever.