Exam 1: Defining Death
The traditional heart-lung standard for death states that a person is dead if
D
What are the two main grounds the Commission cites in favor of its "whole brain" standard for death? In what ways, according to the Commission, is the brain more "central" to life than other bodily organs or functions? Is the Commission's case for the "whole brain" standard convincing? Why or why not?
The two main grounds the Commission cites in favor of its "whole brain" standard for death are the idea that the brain is the central organ that coordinates and regulates all bodily functions, and that the loss of brain function is irreversible and results in the permanent cessation of all functions necessary for life.
According to the Commission, the brain is more "central" to life than other bodily organs or functions because it is responsible for controlling and coordinating all bodily functions, including those of the heart, lungs, and other vital organs. The Commission argues that without brain function, the body cannot maintain homeostasis or sustain life, making the brain the most essential organ for life.
The Commission's case for the "whole brain" standard is convincing in that it provides a clear and logical rationale for why brain function should be the determining factor for death. The idea that the brain is the central regulator of all bodily functions and that its irreversible loss results in the permanent cessation of life is a compelling argument for using the "whole brain" standard.
However, some may argue that the Commission's case is not convincing because it does not take into account the potential for advancements in medical technology that could potentially restore brain function in the future. Additionally, there may be ethical considerations regarding the determination of death based solely on brain function, as opposed to other bodily functions. Overall, while the Commission's case for the "whole brain" standard is strong, there are potential counterarguments that could be considered.
Which of the following developments led the Commission to investigate the possibility of a new medical standard for declaring death?
A
The 'whole brain' standard for determining death implies that a person may be declared dead when respiration and circulation are maintained by artificial means.
One consequence of the "higher brain" standard is that those in persistent vegetative states (such as Karen Quinlan) are "just as dead as a corpse." Is that a compelling reason to reject the higher brain standard? In what sense, if any, are those in persistent vegetative states living persons?
The model legislation proposed by the Commission states that an individual has died when
Filters
- Essay(0)
- Multiple Choice(0)
- Short Answer(0)
- True False(0)
- Matching(0)