The Moral Illicitness of Relying Solely on Neurological Criteria for the Determination of Death: A Catholic Response to "Brain Death".

IF 0.4 Q4 MEDICAL ETHICS Linacre Quarterly Pub Date : 2023-08-01 Epub Date: 2023-08-02 DOI:10.1177/00243639231189330
Michael Arthur Vacca
{"title":"The Moral Illicitness of Relying Solely on Neurological Criteria for the Determination of Death: A Catholic Response to \"Brain Death\".","authors":"Michael Arthur Vacca","doi":"10.1177/00243639231189330","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This paper presents the biological, philosophical, and theological arguments against \"brain death\" or death determined strictly through neurological criteria. It is rooted in a realistic, Thomistic metaphysical and anthropological view of the human person and the objective reality of death. Part I of the paper reviews the medical evidence that the bodies of those declared brain death are alive and makes clear that the bodies of \"brain dead\" patients are not biologically analogous to severed body parts. Part II presents the philosophical and theological argument that it is impossible to be a live human being and not a person. Since then those declared brain dead are somatically alive, they are live human persons with the right to life and cannot be subject to the extraction of vital, unpaired organs, since this would violate the dead donor rule. Part III reviews why the Magisterium has not unconditionally approved the determination of death through neurological criteria, and why it would be within the competence of the Magisterium to preclude medical professionals from determining death strictly through neurological criteria. The paper argues that there should be a ban on all vital, unpaired organ donation from \"brain dead\" donors.</p>","PeriodicalId":44238,"journal":{"name":"Linacre Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10566484/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Linacre Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00243639231189330","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICAL ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper presents the biological, philosophical, and theological arguments against "brain death" or death determined strictly through neurological criteria. It is rooted in a realistic, Thomistic metaphysical and anthropological view of the human person and the objective reality of death. Part I of the paper reviews the medical evidence that the bodies of those declared brain death are alive and makes clear that the bodies of "brain dead" patients are not biologically analogous to severed body parts. Part II presents the philosophical and theological argument that it is impossible to be a live human being and not a person. Since then those declared brain dead are somatically alive, they are live human persons with the right to life and cannot be subject to the extraction of vital, unpaired organs, since this would violate the dead donor rule. Part III reviews why the Magisterium has not unconditionally approved the determination of death through neurological criteria, and why it would be within the competence of the Magisterium to preclude medical professionals from determining death strictly through neurological criteria. The paper argues that there should be a ban on all vital, unpaired organ donation from "brain dead" donors.

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
完全依赖神经标准来确定死亡的道德缺失:天主教对“脑死亡”的回应。
本文提出了生物学、哲学和神学的论点,反对“脑死亡”或严格根据神经学标准确定的死亡。它植根于一种对人和死亡的客观现实的现实主义、形而上学和人类学的观点。论文的第一部分回顾了那些被宣布脑死亡的人的尸体是活着的医学证据,并明确指出“脑死亡”患者的尸体在生物学上与被切断的身体部位并不相似。第二部分提出了哲学和神学论点,即不可能成为一个活着的人而不是一个人。从那时起,那些被宣布脑死亡的人在身体上是活着的,他们是有生命权的活着的人,不能提取重要的、不成对的器官,因为这将违反死亡捐赠者规则。第三部分回顾了为什么地方检察官没有无条件地批准通过神经标准来确定死亡,以及为什么禁止医疗专业人员严格通过神经标准确定死亡是地方检察官的职权范围。该论文认为,应该禁止“脑死亡”捐赠者捐献所有重要的、未配对的器官。
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
Linacre Quarterly
Linacre Quarterly MEDICAL ETHICS-
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
40.00%
发文量
57
期刊最新文献
Appalachia - Bridging the Opioid Epidemic Amid the Fentanyl Crisis. Challenges, Conflicts, and Opportunities. Philosophical and Moral Issues of Organ Transplantation at the Close of the Twentieth Century. God and the Imperfect Practice of Medicine. The Medical, Sociological, Psychological, Religious, and Spiritual Aspects of Masturbation and a Potential Approach to Therapy Based on Catholic Teaching and Virtues Psychology.
×
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