Why Is Brain Death Important

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)

The neocortical brain death definition suggests that death occurs when the cerebrum or upper brain dies, eliminating speech, consciousness and thought; basically, an individual is dead when their personality dies. The trouble here is that an individual who has

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

Unfortunately, medical professionals must deal with life and death scenarios on a daily basis but the world without these individuals would be a much different environment. The scenario of the doctor suspecting that the patient on a ventilator is brain dead, requires several ethical decisions before proceeding. Families of a patient who is brain dead must deal with the reality of their loss and should be allowed to process the information appropriately.

In the case of Terry Schiavo, the act of passive euthanasia, allowing the body to expire by no longer

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

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

Theologically and scientifically the concept of death has remained unopposed for centuries, however the idea of how do we conclude what is the true essence of living continues to be widely debated. A curveball case would be one regarding brain-dead patients. In December 2014, patient Jahi McMath of Oakland California – a state in which one who is brain dead is classified as not legally alive - was declared brain-dead by three doctors, thus lawfully ordered to be removed from life support. Valiant disagreement ensued upon her parents refusal to accept this judgement and till today Jahi is on life support. (Drummond, 2015). Fieser (2008) argues that the neurological theory holds the most rational denotation of death, in which absence of any form

Brain stem is considered to be one of the most primitive parts of the brain that is crucial to human survival. As thoroughly explicated by most scholars and anatomist throughout the centuries, it regulates the most fundamental physiological activities of the human body which are essential for maintaining and sustaining life. This is how each function is utilized in medical practice to define death through different research and experiments.

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.

Until this century, it was rare that brain-dead patients could be kept alive for long periods of time. However, as technological prowess has increased, it has recently become possible to keep a patient alive without higher brain functioning for years and even decades. But, as is always the case with new technology and knowledge,

Per the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), a diagnosis of brain death is considered legally and clinically dead. It is evidenced by coma, absence of brainstem reflexes and apnea, and is defined as an irreversible loss of brain function. (Brain Death) As a healthcare provider, it can be easy to make a

Brain- death humans are difficult to classify as either dead or alive because of their conflicting states. For one part, brain- death humans have working internal regulatory functions, such as the ability for homeostasis, but lacked the complexity for external and high cortical functions. This includes the ability for thought, communicate and other survival functions Thus, one ethical dilemma is whether internal somatic functions are enough to consider a brain- death human alive, despite lacking the qualities that makes them “human”. To answer this question, Bragger juxtaposes the views of Dr. Alan Shewmon, a professor of pediatric neurology and a leading critic of the whole- brain argument and the 2008 White Paper on Brain Death, published by the President Council of Bioethics. Dr. Shewmon argues that despite lacking high-cortical functions, many brain- death mediated patients demonstrate qualities of living organisms, such as maintaining homeostasis and eliminating

The Universal Determination of Death Act provides a comprehensive base for determining death in all situations. In 1979, the American Medical Association created the Model Determination of Death statute due to modern advances in lifesaving technology. A person may be artificially supported for respiration and circulation after all brain functions come to an end. The medical profession, has developed techniques for determining loss of brain functions while cardiorespiratory support is administered. The definition of death can’t assure recognition of these techniques, and can be demonstrated by the absence of spontaneous respiratory and cardiac functions.

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