For most of human history there was little question about whether someone was dead or alive--a heartbeat or a pulse, or a foggy mirror under the nostrils, provided sufficient evidence. But in the mid-20th century, with new technologies and medical interventions that prolonged the dying process, the questions around the precise moment of death became much more complicated. Today the global medical community recognizes three general definitions of death: whole-brain, circulatory or somatic, and higher-brain. But even in the United States alone no single concept of death has the support of the majority of its citizens. Despite attempts to create and establish a uniform definition of death, physicians and policymakers continue to disagree on criteria and standards--resulting in confusion and acrimony in medicine, law, and insurance, not to mention families gathered around the bedside of a dying loved one. In this brief introduction Veatch and Ross lay out the history of this contentious issue and describe the three major definitions of death in detail. They contend that choosing a particular definition of death reflects an individual's basic religious and philosophical beliefs about what is essential to human existence. So while they propose higher-brain death as a default policy, they argue for some degree of personal choice.
Veatch and Ross explore the various criteria being used to determine whether a person is dead or alive now that technology has undermined at least some of the traditional criteria such as blood circulation and breath. They cover the dead donor rule and the concept of death; the whole-brain concept of death; the circulatory, or somatic, concept of death; the higher-brain concept of death; the conscience clause: how much individual choice society can tolerate in determining death; and crafting a new definition-of-death law. Annotation ©2016 Ringgold, Inc., Portland, OR (protoview.com)
New technologies and medical treatments have complicated questions such as how to determine the moment when someone has died. The result is a failure to establish consensus on the definition of death and the criteria by which the moment of death is determined. This creates confusion and disagreement not only among medical, legal, and insurance professionals but also within families faced with difficult decisions concerning their loved ones.
Distinguished bioethicists Robert M. Veatch and Lainie F. Ross argue that the definition of death is not a scientific question but a social one rooted in religious, philosophical, and social beliefs. Drawing on history and recent court cases, the authors detail three potential definitions of death the whole-brain concept; the circulatory, or somatic, concept; and the higher-brain concept. Because no one definition of death commands majority support, it creates a major public policy problem. The authors cede that society needs a default definition to proceed in certain cases, like those involving organ transplantation. But they also argue the decision-making process must give individuals the space to choose among plausible definitions of death according to personal beliefs.
Taken in part from the authors' latest edition of their groundbreaking work on transplantation ethics, Defining Death is an indispensable guide for professionals in medicine, law, insurance, public policy, theology, and philosophy as well as lay people trying to decide when they want to be treated as dead.
New technologies and medical treatments continue to complicate questions surrounding the moment of death. Distinguished bioethicists Robert M. Veatch and Lainie F. Ross argue that the definition of death is a social question rooted in a person's religious, philosophical, or social beliefs. While ceding that society needs a default definition to proceed in certain cases, the authors state that any decision-making process must allow individuals to make their own choices according to their personal beliefs.
