{"title":"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。","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":"90 3","pages":"260-272"},"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":"{\"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\":\"90 3\",\"pages\":\"260-272\"},\"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}","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}
The Moral Illicitness of Relying Solely on Neurological Criteria for the Determination of Death: A Catholic Response to "Brain Death".
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.