Inconsistency between the Circulatory and the Brain Criteria of Death in the Uniform Determination of Death Act.

IF 1.3 3区 哲学 Q3 ETHICS Journal of Medicine and Philosophy Pub Date : 2023-09-14 DOI:10.1093/jmp/jhad029
Alberto Molina-Pérez, James L Bernat, Anne Dalle Ave
{"title":"Inconsistency between the Circulatory and the Brain Criteria of Death in the Uniform Determination of Death Act.","authors":"Alberto Molina-Pérez,&nbsp;James L Bernat,&nbsp;Anne Dalle Ave","doi":"10.1093/jmp/jhad029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) provides that \"an individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead.\" We show that the UDDA contains two conflicting interpretations of the phrase \"cessation of functions.\" By one interpretation, what matters for the determination of death is the cessation of spontaneous functions only, regardless of their generation by artificial means. By the other, what matters is the cessation of both spontaneous and artificially supported functions. Because each UDDA criterion uses a different interpretation, the law is conceptually inconsistent. A single consistent interpretation would lead to the conclusion that conscious individuals whose respiratory and circulatory functions are artificially supported are actually dead, or that individuals whose brain is entirely and irreversibly destroyed may be alive. We explore solutions to mitigate the inconsistency.</p>","PeriodicalId":47377,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medicine and Philosophy","volume":"48 5","pages":"422-433"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/73/91/jhad029.PMC10501178.pdf","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medicine and Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jhad029","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

The Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) provides that "an individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead." We show that the UDDA contains two conflicting interpretations of the phrase "cessation of functions." By one interpretation, what matters for the determination of death is the cessation of spontaneous functions only, regardless of their generation by artificial means. By the other, what matters is the cessation of both spontaneous and artificially supported functions. Because each UDDA criterion uses a different interpretation, the law is conceptually inconsistent. A single consistent interpretation would lead to the conclusion that conscious individuals whose respiratory and circulatory functions are artificially supported are actually dead, or that individuals whose brain is entirely and irreversibly destroyed may be alive. We explore solutions to mitigate the inconsistency.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
《统一死亡判定法》中循环死亡标准与脑死亡标准的不一致。
《统一死亡判定法》(UDDA)规定,“一个人如果(1)循环和呼吸功能不可逆转地停止,或(2)整个大脑(包括脑干)的所有功能不可逆转地停止,他就已经死亡。”我们表明UDDA包含对短语“功能停止”的两种相互冲突的解释。根据一种解释,决定死亡的关键仅仅是自发功能的停止,而不管这些功能是通过人工手段产生的。另一方面,重要的是停止自发和人为支持的功能。由于每个UDDA标准使用不同的解释,因此法律在概念上是不一致的。一个单一的一致的解释将导致这样的结论:呼吸和循环功能被人工支持的有意识的人实际上已经死亡,或者大脑被完全不可逆转地破坏的人可能还活着。我们将探讨缓解不一致的解决方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
6.20%
发文量
30
期刊介绍: This bimonthly publication explores the shared themes and concerns of philosophy and the medical sciences. Central issues in medical research and practice have important philosophical dimensions, for, in treating disease and promoting health, medicine involves presuppositions about human goals and values. Conversely, the concerns of philosophy often significantly relate to those of medicine, as philosophers seek to understand the nature of medical knowledge and the human condition in the modern world. In addition, recent developments in medical technology and treatment create moral problems that raise important philosophical questions. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy aims to provide an ongoing forum for the discussion of such themes and issues.
期刊最新文献
Disability, Offense, and the Expressivist Objection to Medical Aid in Dying. Kidney Sales and Disrespectful Demands: A Reply to Rippon. Plastic Resilience: Rethinking Resilience in Illness with Catherine Malabou. A Defense of the Obligation to Keep Promises to the Dead. Why Moral Bioenhancement Cannot Reliably Produce Virtue.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1