确定死亡的多元化

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":"确定死亡的多元化","authors":"Gonzalo Díaz-Cobacho , 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":"{\"title\":\"Pluralism in the determination of death\",\"authors\":\"Gonzalo Díaz-Cobacho , 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}","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

摘要

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。

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

Pluralism in the determination of death

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.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

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.