Commentary on "The Incoherence of Determining Death by Neurological Criteria"
Lizza, John P.
Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 2009 December; 19(4): 393-395
This commentary challenges the conclusions reached by Franklin Miller and Robert Truog in their criticism of the President's Council's White Paper, "Controversies in the Determination of Death." I agree with much of Miller and Truog's criticism of the rationale offered by the President's Council for accepting neurological criteria for determining death but argue that they too quickly dismiss the alternative rationale of determining death by neurological criteria-i.e., the destruction of the psychophysical integrity of the human being that occurs when the potential for consciousness and every other mental function is lost due to catastrophic injury to the brain. By focusing on the death of bodies instead of human beings, their view absurdly implies that decapitation would not necessarily result in one's death. Since total brain failure is a form of physiological decapitation, the neurological criterion coheres perfectly well with the ordinary understanding of decapitation as death.
Permanent LinkFind in a Library.
Full Text from Publisher
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
The Incoherence of Determining Death by Neurological Criteria: A Commentary on "Controversies in the Determination of Death", a White Paper by the President's Council on Bioethics Miller, Franklin G.; Truog, Robert D. (2009-06)Traditionally the cessation of breathing and heart beat has marked the passage from life to death. Shortly after death was determined, the body became a cold corpse, suitable for burial or cremation. Two technological ...
Miller, Franklin G.; Truog, Robert D. (2009-12)Human life and death should be defined biologically. It is important not to conflate the definition of death with the criteria for when it has occurred. What is distinctively "human" from a scientific or normative perspective ...