Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Christian Perspectives on Death by Neurologic Criteria

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Death Determination by Neurologic Criteria

Part of the book series: Advances in Neuroethics ((AIN))

  • 415 Accesses

Abstract

In the Christian (Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox) faith traditions, ecclesiastical leaders, theologians, and ethicists have a long history of engagement in debates regarding the determination of death. This theological engagement is informed by several core interests of Christian commitment, including the nature of the self, the relationship between religious convictions and medical science, the value of organ donation, the moral integrity of end-of-life care, and moral authority in Christian communities. Current controversies in scientific, philosophical, and policy communities regarding the legitimacy of neurologic criteria for determining death have been a catalyst for vibrant debates among all Christian faith traditions. Catholic scholars have engaged in arguments regarding the moral authority of papal teaching, the meaning of integrative functioning following death by neurologic criteria, the nature of moral certainty, the status of the dead donor rule, and the conflicted conscience. Protestant discussion develops a concept of death within the Christian narrative of salvation but often reflects ecclesiastical silence on the specific criteria of death. Orthodox teaching suggests several possible theologically acceptable criteria for death, focusing on the nature of the person, the concept of death, and the practical issue of care for patients in a vegetative state/unaware-wakeful state.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For a critique of this coherence of theology and neurologic criteria, see Byrne PA, O’Reilly S, Quay PM. Brain Death—An Opposing Viewpoint,” JAMA 1979; 242: 1985–1990; Byrne PA, O’Reilly S, Quay PM, Salsich Jr. PW. Brain Death – The Patient, the Physician, and Society. Gonzaga Law Review 1982; 18:429–516.

  2. 2.

    It is beyond the scope of this overview to discuss the details of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (PAS) working groups, but their magisterial authority and public transparency are of considerable dispute among Catholic scholars [12].

References

  1. Ad Hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School. A definition of irreversible coma: report of the ad hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School to Examine the Definition of Brain Death. JAMA. 1968;205:337–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Pius XII. Address to an international congress of anesthesiologists. Natl Catholic Bioethics Quar. 2002;2:309–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Defining death: a report on the medical, legal, and ethical issues in the determination of death, vol. 11. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; 1981. p. 43.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Vieth FJ, Fein JM, Tendler MD, et al. Brain death I: a status report on medical and ethical considerations. JAMA. 1977;238:1651–5.

    Google Scholar 

  5. John Paul II. Address to the 18th International Congress of the Transplantation Society [Internet]. Vatican.va. 2000. http://www.vatican.va/holy_ father/john_paul_ii/speeches/2000/jul-sep/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20000829_transplants_en.html. Accessed 1 July 2021.

  6. Ramsey P. The patient as person: explorations in medical ethics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bernat JL. The definition and criterion of death. Handb Clin Neurol. 2013;118:419–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. May WF. Religious justifications for donating body parts. Hastings Cent Rep. 1985;15:38–42.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Alexander I. Humility before new scientific evidence: we no longer have moral certainty that ‘brain death’ is true death. Linacre Q. 2019;86:314–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Tonti-Filippini N. You only die twice: Augustine, Aquinas, the Council of Vienne, and death by the brain criterion. Communio. 2011;38:308–25.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Shewmon DA. You only die once: why brain death is not the death of a human being. Communio. 2012;39:422–94.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Aviv R. What does it mean to die? [internet]. The New Yorkercom, 2018; https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/02/05/what-does-it-mean-to-die Accessed 15 Sept 2018.

  13. Pontifical Academy of Sciences. Why the concept of brain death is valid as a definition of death. In: Sanchez Sarondo M, editor. The Signs of Death, The Proceedings of the Working Group of 11-12 September 2006, Scripta Varia, vol. 2007. Vatican City: The Pontifical Academy of Sciences. p. 110. http://www.casinapioiv.va/content/accademia/en/publications/scriptavaria/signsofdeath.html.

  14. Moschella M, Condic ML. Symposium on the definition of death: summary statement. J Med Philos. 2016;41:351–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Jones DA. Loss of faith in brain death: catholic controversy over the determination of death by neurologic criteria. Clin Ethics. 2012;7:133–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Diamond EF. John Paul II and brain death. Natl Catholic Bioethics Quar. 2007;7:491–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Haas JM. Catholic teaching regarding the legitimacy of neurologic criteria for the determination of death. Natl Catholic Bioethics Quar. 2011;11:279–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Nguyen D. Pope John Paul II and the neurologic standard for the determination of death: a critical analysis of his address to the transplantation society. Linacre Q. 2017;84:155–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Brugger EC. Are brain dead individuals dead? Grounds for reasonable doubt. J Med Philos. 2016;41:329–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ostertag K, Karches K. Brain death and the formation of moral conscience. Linacre Q. 2019;86:335–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Shewmon DA. Chronic “brain death”: meta-analysis and conceptual consequences. Neurology. 1998;51:1538–45.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Shewmon DA. ‘Brainstem death,’ ‘brain death’ and death: A critical reevaluation of the purported equivalence. Issues Law Med. 1998;14:125–45.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. President’s Council on Bioethics. Controversies in the determination of death. Washington, DC; 2008. p. 37–40.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Nguyen D. Evolution of the criteria of ‘brain death’: a critical analysis based on scientific realism and Christian anthropology. Linacre Q. 2019;86:297–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Verheijde JL, Rady MY, Potts M. Neuroscience and brain death controversies: the elephant in the room. J Relig Health. 2018;57:1745–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Tonti-Filippini N. Religious and secular death: a parting of the ways. Bioethics. 2012;26:410–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Condic M. Determination of death: a scientific perspective on biological integration. J Med Philos. 2016;41:257–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Moschella M. Deconstructing the brain disconnection-brain destruction analogy and clarifying the rationale for the neurologic criterion of death. J Med Philos. 2016;41:279–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Francis, Pope. Address to the Italian Association for the Donation of Organs, Tissues, and Cells [Internet 2019]. Vatican.va. 2019. https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2019/april/documents/papa-francesco_20190413_donazione-organi.html. Accessed 10 Aug 2021.

  30. John Paul II, Pope. Evangelium Vitae [Internet] 1995. https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html. Accessed 1 Aug 2021.

  31. Pellegrino ED. Personal statement. In: Controversies in the determination of death. president’s council on bioethics. Washington, DC; 2008. p. 107–19.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Shewmon DA. The dead donor role: lessons from linguistics. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2004;14:277–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Shewmon DA. Constructing the death elephant: a synthetic paradigm shift for the definition, criteria, and tests for death. J Med Philos. 2010;35:256–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Benedict XVI, Pope. Address to an International Congress organized by the Pontifical Academy for Life [Internet]. Vatican.va 2008. https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2008/november/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20081107_acdlife.pdf. Accessed 31 Aug 2021.

  35. Verheijde JL, Potts M. Commentary on the concept of brain death within the catholic bioethical framework. Christ Bioeth. 2010;16:246–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Olick RS, Braun EA, Potash J. Accommodating religious and moral objections to neurologic death. J Clin Ethics. 2009;20:183–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Campbell CS. Imposing death: religious witness on brain death. Hastings Cent Rep. 2018;48:S56–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Moschella M. Brain death and organ donation: a crisis of public trust. Christ Bioeth. 2018;24:133–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Ramsey P. Updating death. In: Cutler DR, editor. Updating life and death: essays in ethics and medicine. Boston, MA: Beacon Press; 1969. p. 31–54.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Hauerwas S. Suffering presence: theological reflections on medicine, the medically handicapped, and the church. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press; 1986. p. 87–99.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Christian Biowiki. Definition of death [Internet]. Christianbiowiki.org. http://christianbiowiki.org/wiki/index.php/Definition_of_Death. Accessed 25 July 2021.

  42. United Network for Organ Sharing. Theological perspective on organ and tissue donation [Internet]. https://unos.org/transplant/facts/theological-perspective-on-organ-and-tissue-donation/. Accessed 15 Sept 2019.

  43. Setta SM, Sheema SD. An explanation and analysis of how world religions formulate their ethical decisions on withdrawing treatment and determining death. Philos Ethics Humanit Med. 2015;10:1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. Life support and brain dead [Internet]. Wels.net. https://wels.net/faq/life-support-and-brain-dead/. Accessed 10 Aug 2021.

  45. Munoz MG. Christian bioethics, brain death, and vital organ donation. Christ Bioeth. 2018;24:79–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Church of the Lutheran Brethren. Euthanasia and assisted suicide. Minneapolis, MN: Faith and Fellowship Publishing; 2010. p. 7.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Powell CMH. Being human: how should we define life and personhood? [Internet] News.ag. 2010. https://news.ag.org/en/Features/Being-Human-How-Should-We-Define-Life-and-Personhood. Accessed 1 Aug 2021.

  48. Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. Report on euthanasia with guiding principles [internet]. In: Abbott D, editor. The Lutheran tradition: religious beliefs and health care decisions, vol. 17. Chicago, IL: Park Ridge Center; 2002. https://www.advocatehealth.com/assets/documents/faith/lutheranfinal.pdf. Accessed 1 June 2021.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Christian Medical and Dental Association. Position Statements: Death [Internet]. Cmda.org. 2004. https://cmda.org/policy-issues-home/position-statements/. Accessed 22 Aug 2021.

  50. Carter J. Basic bioethics: a glossary on taking life [Internet]. Erlc.com. 2018. https://erlc.com/resource-library/articles/basic-bioethics-a-glossary-on-taking-life/. Accessed 6 Aug 2021.

  51. Presbyterian church, U. S. A. In life and in death we belong to god: euthanasia, assisted suicide, and end-of-life issues, a study guide [internet]. Presbyterianmission.org, vol. 42. Louisville, KY: Presbyterian Publishing; 1995. https://www.presbyterianmission.org/resource/paper-life-and-death-we-belong-god-euthanasia-assi/. Accessed 6 June 2021

  52. Roberts AH II. The higher-brain concept of death: a Christian theological appraisal. Ethics Med. 2017;33:177–91.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Hatzinikolaou N. Prolonging life or hindering death? An orthodox perspective on death, dying and euthanasia. Christ Bioeth. 2003;9:187–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Harakas SS. The Orthodox Christian Tradition: Religious Beliefs and Healthcare Decisions [Internet]. Advocatehealth.com. Chicago, IL: Park Ridge Center; 1999. p. 10. https://www.advocatehealth.com/assets/documents/faith/orthodox_christian.pdf. Accessed 6 Aug 2021

  55. Breck J. The sacred gift of life: orthodox Christianity and bioethics. Crestwood/New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press; 1997. p. 232–3.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Protodeacon Basil Andruchow. Medical bioethics: an orthodox Christian perspective for orthodox Christians [Internet]. OCAorg 2010. https://www.oca.org/parish-ministry/familylife/medical-bioethics-an-orthodox-christian-perspective-for-orthodox-christians. Accessed 10 Aug 2021.

  57. Roberts AH II. Eastern orthodox views on a “higher-brain” death criterion: why theology must inform medical ethics. Int J Orthodox Theol. 2017;8:115–33.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Program in Medical Humanities, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA

    Courtney S. Campbell

Authors
  1. Courtney S. Campbell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Courtney S. Campbell .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA

    Ariane Lewis

  2. Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine, Hanover, NH, USA

    James L. Bernat

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Campbell, C.S. (2022). Christian Perspectives on Death by Neurologic Criteria. In: Lewis, A., Bernat, J.L. (eds) Death Determination by Neurologic Criteria. Advances in Neuroethics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15947-3_25

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15947-3_25

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-15946-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-15947-3

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation