Journal of Bioethical Inquiry

, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp 383–392 | Cite as

Reviving Brain Death: A Functionalist View

Original Research

Abstract

Recently both whole brain death (WBD) and higher brain death (HBD) have come under attack. These attacks, we argue, are successful, leaving supporters of both views without a firm foundation. This state of affairs has been described as “the death of brain death.” Returning to a cardiopulmonary definition presents problems we also find unacceptable. Instead, we attempt to revive brain death by offering a novel and more coherent standard of death based on the permanent cessation of mental processing. This approach works, we claim, by being functionalist instead of being based in biology, consciousness, or personhood. We begin by explaining why an objective biological determination of death fails. We continue by similarly rejecting current arguments offered in support of HBD, which rely on consciousness and/or personhood. In the final section, we explain and defend our functionalist view of death. Our definition centers on mental processing, both conscious and preconscious or unconscious. This view provides the philosophical basis of a functional definition that most accurately reflects the original spirit of brain death when first proposed in the Harvard criteria of 1968.

Keywords

Whole brain death Higher brain death Cardiopulmonary death Determination of death 

References

  1. Bernat, J.L. 2006. The whole-brain concept of death remains optimum public policy. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 34(1): 35–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bernat, J.L., C.M. Culver, and B. Gert. 1981. On the definition and criterion of death. Annals of Internal Medicine 94(3): 389–394.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Damasio, A. 1999. The feeling of what happens: Body and emotion in the making of consciousness. New York: Harcourt.Google Scholar
  4. Haidt, J. 2001. The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review 108(4): 814–834.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. James, S.D. 2012. Conjoined twins Abbey and Brittany Hensel: “Normal—whatever that is.” ABC Good Morning America, August 17. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/conjoined-twins-abby-brittany-hensel-astound-doctors-normalcy/story?id=17021596. Accessed March 6, 2013.
  6. LiPuma, S.H. 2013. Continuous sedation until death as physician assisted suicide/euthanasia: A conceptual analysis. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 38(2): 190–204.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Lizza, J. 2010. Commentary on the incoherence of determining death by neurological criteria. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 19(4): 393–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. McMahan, J. 2006. An Alternative to brain death. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 34(1): 35–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Miller, F.G., and R.D. Truog. 2009. The incoherence of determining death by neurological criteria. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 19(2): 185–193.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Miller, F.G., and R.D. Truog. 2010. The incoherence of determining death by neurological criteria: Reply to John Lizza. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 19(4): 397–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Naccache, S., and L. Naccache. 2001. Towards a cognitive neuroscience of consciousness: Basic evidence and a workspace framework. Cognition 79(1–2): 1–37.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Neil, M. 2012. As conjoined twins enter the world of work, some new definitions of work may be needed. ABA Journal, August 27. http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/as_conjoined_twins_enter_the_world_of_work_some_new_legal_definitions/. Accessed March 6, 2013.
  13. Parvizi, J., and A. Damasio. 2001. Consciousness and the brainstem. Cognition 79(1–2): 135–159.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research. 1981. Defining death: Medical, legal, and ethical issues in the determination of death. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  15. President’s Council on Bioethics. 2008. Controversies in the determination of death. Washington: President’s Council on Bioethics.Google Scholar
  16. Shewmon, D.A. 2001. The brain and somatic integration: Insights into the standard biological rationale for equating “brain death” with death. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 26(5): 457–478.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Veatch, R.M. 1993. The impending collapse of whole brain definition of death. The Hastings Center Report 23(4): 18–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Veatch, R.M. 2005. The death of whole-brain death: The plague of the disaggregators, somaticists, and mentalists. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 30(4): 353–378.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyCuyahoga Community College, Western CampusParmaUSA
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyCleveland State UniversityClevelandUSA

Personalised recommendations