Advertisement

Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics

, Volume 40, Issue 5, pp 437–453 | Cite as

The human organism is not a conductorless orchestra: a defense of brain death as true biological death

  • Melissa MoschellaEmail author
Article

Abstract

In this paper, I argue that brain death is death because, despite the appearance of genuine integration, the brain-dead body does not in fact possess the unity that is proper to a human organism. A brain-dead body is not a single entity, but a multitude of organs and tissues functioning in a coordinated manner with the help of artificial life support. In order to support this claim, I first lay out Hoffmann and Rosenkrantz’s ontological account of the requirements for organismal unity and summarize an earlier paper in which I apply this account to the brain death debate. I then further support this ontological argument by developing an analogy between the requirements for the unity of an organism and the requirements for the unity of an orchestra. To do so, I begin by examining the role that a conductor plays in unifying a traditional orchestra, and then go on to show that the human organism (at least in postnatal stages) functions like a traditional orchestra that relies upon a conductor (the brain) for its unity. Next, I consider the conditions required to achieve orchestral unity in conductorless orchestras and show that, in contrast to simpler organisms like plants, the postnatal human organism lacks those conditions. I argue, in other words, that although conductorless orchestras do exist, the human organism is not one of them. Like a traditional orchestra without a conductor, the brain-dead body is not a unified whole.

Keywords

Brain death Definition of death Organismal unity Alan Shewmon 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Farr Curlin and Michael Gorman for their insightful comments on previous drafts of this article, as well as Daniel Sulmasy and the McDonald Agape Foundation for making possible the conference at which this paper was first presented.

References

  1. 1.
    Bernat, James L., Charles M. Culver, and Bernard Gert. 1981. On the definition and criterion of death. Annals of Internal Medicine 94: 389–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Korein, Julius. 1978. The problem of brain death: Development and history. Annals of the New York Academy of Science 315: 19–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Moschella, Melissa. 2016. Integrated but not whole? Applying an ontological account of human organismal unity to the brain death debate. Bioethics 30: 550–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hoffman, Joshua, and Gary S. Rosenkrantz. 1997. Substance: Its nature and existence. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rosenkrantz, Gary S. 2012. Animate beings: Their nature and identity. Ratio 25: 442–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shewmon, D. Alan. 1998. Chronic “brain death”: Meta-analysis and conceptual consequences. Neurology 51: 1538–1545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shewmon, D. Alan. 2001. The brain and somatic integration: Insights into the standard biological rationale for equating “brain death” with death. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 26: 457–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Slatkin, Leonard. 2012. Conducting business: Unveiling the mystery behind the maestro. Milwaukee: Amadeus Press.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schultz, Rick. 2010. Are conductors really necessary? Los Angeles Times, August 15. http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/15/entertainment/la-ca-what-conductors-do-20100815.
  10. 10.
    Olufsen, Mette S., Johnny T. Ottesen, Hien T. Tran, Laura M. Ellwein, Lewis A. Lipsitz, and Vera Novak. 2005. Blood pressure and blood flow variation during postural change from sitting to standing: Model development and validation. Journal of Applied Physiology 99: 1523–1537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yang, Jian, Pedro A. Jose, and Chunyu Zeng. 2017. Gastrointestinal–renal axis: Role in the regulation of blood pressure. Journal of the American Heart Association 6(3): e005536.  https://doi.org/10.1161/jaha.117.005536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Repertinger, Susan, William P. Fitzgibbons, Mathew F. Omojola, and Roger A. Brumback. 2006. Long survival following bacterial meningitis-associated brain destruction. Journal of Child Neurology 21: 591–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Small, Christopher. 2011. Musicking: The meanings of performing and listening. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Duchen, Jessica. 2014. Spira Mirabilis: The orchestra without a conductor. Independent, October 21. http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/classical/features/spira-mirabilis-the-orchestra-without-a-conductor-9809226.html.
  15. 15.
    Battey, Robert. 2011. Music review: Orpheus Chamber Orchestra. Washington Post, April 24. https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/music-review-orpheus-chamber-orchestra/2011/04/24/AFApZ8hE_story.html.
  16. 16.
    Begley, Sharon. 2017. Brain stimulation partially awakens patient after 15 years in vegetative state. Scientific American, September 25. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brain-stimulation-partly-awakens-patient-after-15-years-in-vegetative-state.
  17. 17.
    Moschella, Melissa. 2016. Deconstructing the brain disconnection–brain death analogy and clarifying the rationale for the neurological criterion of death. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 41: 279–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of PhilosophyCatholic University of AmericaWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations