Affiliation:
1. Alden March Bioethics Institute at Albany Medical College , Albany, New York , USA
Abstract
AbstractThere are currently two legally established criteria for death: the irreversible cessation of circulation and respiration and the irreversible cessation of neurologic function. Recently, there have been technological developments that could undermine the irreversibility requirement. In this paper, I focus both on whether death should be identified as an irreversible state and on the proper scope of irreversibility in the biological definition of death. In this paper, I tackle the distinction between the commonsense definition of death and the biological definition of death to show that even the commonsense concept of death is specified by biological facts. Resting on this argument, I argue that any definition of death is a posteriori. Thus, irreversibility is part of any definition of death because the actual phenomenon of death is irreversible. In addition, I show that the proper domain of irreversibility in a definition of death is circumscribed by physical possibilities and that irreversibility in the definition of death refers to current possibilities for the reversal of relevant biological processes. I conclude that, despite recent technological advancements, death is still irreversible.
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Subject
Philosophy,General Medicine,Issues, ethics and legal aspects
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. Future Lives and Deaths with Purpose: Perspectives on Capacity, Character, and Intent;The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine;2024-09-03
2. Postmortem communication;Theory in Biosciences;2024-08-03
3. “Death” and Its Discontents;The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine;2023-09-14
4. Certainty, Science, and the Brain-Based Definition of Death;AJOB Neuroscience;2023-07-03