Can We Handle the Truth? Legal Fictions in the Determination of Death

Author:

Shah Seema K.,Miller Franklin G.

Abstract

AbstractAdvances in life-saving technologies in the past few decades have challenged our traditional understandings of death. People can be maintained on life-support even after permanently losing the ability to breathe spontaneously and remaining unconscious and unable to interact meaningfully with others. In part because this group of people could help fulfill the growing need for organ donation, there has been a great deal of pressure on the way we determine death. The determination of death has been modified from the old way of understanding death as occurring when a person stops breathing, her heart stops beating, and she is cold to the touch. Today, physicians determine death by relying on a diagnosis of total brain failure or by waiting a short while after circulation stops. Evidence has emerged that the conceptual bases for these approaches to determining death are fundamentally flawed and depart substantially from our biological and common-sense understandings of death.We argue that the current approach to determining death consists of two different types of unacknowledged legal fictions. These legal fictions were developed for practices that are largely ethically legitimate but need to be reconciled with the law. However, the considerable debate over the determination of death in the medical and scientific literature has not informed the public of the fact that our current determinations of death do not adequately establish that a person has died. It seems unlikely that this information can remain hidden for long. Given the instability of the status quo and the difficulty of making the substantial legal changes required by complete transparency, we argue for a second-best policy solution of acknowledging the legal fictions involved in determining death. This move in the direction of greater transparency may someday result in allowing us to face squarely these issues and effect the legal changes necessary to permit ethically appropriate vital organ transplantation. Finally, this paper also provides the beginnings of a taxonomy of legal fictions, concluding that a more systematic theoretical treatment of legal fictions is warranted to understand their advantages and disadvantages across a variety of legal domains.

Publisher

Cambridge University Press (CUP)

Subject

Law,General Medicine,Health (social science)

Reference56 articles.

1. Designating Health Care Decisionmakers for Patients Without Advance Directives: A Psychological Critique;Kohn;Ga. L. Rev.,2008

2. Recovery from “Brain Death”: A Neurologist's Apologia;Shewmon;Linacre Q.,1997

3. Organ Donation After Cardiac Death;Steinbrook;New Eng. J. Med.,2007

4. Eligibility for Organ Donation: A Medico-legal Perspective on Defining and Determining Death;Downie;Canadian J. Anesthesia,2009

5. The Thin Flat Line: Redefining Who Is Legally Dead in Organ Donation After Cardiac Death;Harrington;Issues L. and Med.

Cited by 40 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. A Biophilosophical Approach to the Determination of Brain Death;CHEST;2024-04

2. Philosophical, Medical, and Legal Controversies About Brain Death;2024-02-22

3. Brain Death: The Dilemma Continues;Anaesthesia, Pain & Intensive Care;2024-01-31

4. Challenges to Brain Death in Revising the Uniform Determination of Death Act;Neurology;2023-07-04

5. A New Defense of Brain Death as the Death of the Human Organism;The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine;2023-01-20

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3