Pluralism in the determination of death

IF 4.9 2区 心理学 Q1 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences Pub Date : 2024-03-29 DOI:10.1016/j.cobeha.2024.101373
Gonzalo Díaz-Cobacho , Alberto Molina-Pérez
{"title":"Pluralism in the determination of death","authors":"Gonzalo Díaz-Cobacho ,&nbsp;Alberto Molina-Pérez","doi":"10.1016/j.cobeha.2024.101373","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Since the neurological criterion of death was established in medical practice in the 1960s, there has been a debate in the academic world about its scientific and philosophical validity, its ethical acceptability, and its political appropriateness. Among the many and varied proposals for revising the criteria for human death, we will focus on those that advocate allowing people to choose their own definition and criteria for death within a range of reasonable or tolerable alternatives. These proposals can be categorized under the rubric of pluralism in the determination of death. In this article, we will outline the main proposals and their rationales and provide a current overview of the state of the controversy.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":56191,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences","volume":"57 ","pages":"Article 101373"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235215462400024X/pdfft?md5=e03e65b503251f13d5b08813bd072774&pid=1-s2.0-S235215462400024X-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235215462400024X","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Since the neurological criterion of death was established in medical practice in the 1960s, there has been a debate in the academic world about its scientific and philosophical validity, its ethical acceptability, and its political appropriateness. Among the many and varied proposals for revising the criteria for human death, we will focus on those that advocate allowing people to choose their own definition and criteria for death within a range of reasonable or tolerable alternatives. These proposals can be categorized under the rubric of pluralism in the determination of death. In this article, we will outline the main proposals and their rationales and provide a current overview of the state of the controversy.

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
确定死亡的多元化
自 20 世纪 60 年代神经学死亡标准在医学实践中确立以来,学术界一直在争论其科学和哲学的有效性、伦理的可接受性以及政治的适当性。在众多关于修订人类死亡标准的建议中,我们将重点关注那些主张允许人们在一系列合理或可容忍的替代方案中选择自己的死亡定义和标准的建议。这些建议可以归类为死亡决定多元化。在本文中,我们将概述主要提案及其理由,并提供当前争议状况的概述。
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
Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences
Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences Neuroscience-Cognitive Neuroscience
CiteScore
10.90
自引率
2.00%
发文量
135
期刊介绍: Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences is a systematic, integrative review journal that provides a unique and educational platform for updates on the expanding volume of information published in the field of behavioral sciences.
期刊最新文献
A light at the end of the axon: genetically encoded fluorescent indicators shine light on the dopamine system Dopaminergic computations for perceptual decisions From sensory motor and perceptual development to primary consciousness in the fetus: converging neural, behavioral, and imaging correlates of cognition-mediated emergent transitions Nonsynaptic encoding of behavior by neuropeptides Stress-free indulgence: indulge adaptively to promote goal pursuit and well-being
×
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