Commentary on the Concept of Brain Death within the Catholic Bioethical Framework

Verheijde, Joseph L.; Potts, Michael

doi:10.1093/cb/cbq019

Cited by 15 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A human person is not only represented by the brain and the body is not merely a supplement, having value as long as “the mind” ascribes value to it, but it is an indispensable part a human being. Mind and identity are not exclusively located in the brain (Verheijde and Potts 2010, 248–49).…”

Section: Anthropological Reductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Brain Death and the Dutch Organ Donation Law

Steensma

2020

Linacre Q

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to many legal systems that regulate organ donation, such as Dutch law, a brain-dead patient is regarded as a mortal remains. In general, these systems do not take into account the fact that this definition is being heavily criticized and the far-reaching consequences thereof. In the case of organ transplantation, vital organs are procured from persons who, from a biological perspective, may not yet be dead. A government that values scientific data and wants to provide honest and reliable information to its citizens has to account for this critique of its policy as citizens have the right to be well-informed. Whoever makes the decision to donate organs performs a special act of human solidarity, but the readiness to donate organs in the case of brain death is not inherent to the demand to love one’s neighbor as one loves oneself. Summary: According to legislation on organ donation in many countries, a brain-dead patient is regarded as a mortal remains. The law disregards the fact, however, that this definition is being heavily criticized and that it has far-reaching consequences. In the case of organ transplantation, vital organs are procured from persons who, from a biological perspective, may not yet been dead. A government that values scientific data and wants to provide honest and reliable information to its citizens has to account for this critique in its policy. Citizens have the right to be well-informed.

show abstract

Section: Anthropological Reductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Brain Death and the Dutch Organ Donation Law

Steensma

2020

Linacre Q

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, critics have pointed to three “critical weaknesses of the rationale, endorsed by most religions, for the justification of the concept of brain death. It assumes without validation that (1) the irreversible pathophysiologic conditions under which the soul would separate itself from the body have materialized in brain death, (2) the whole brain serves as the exclusive “integrator” of bodily functioning and is indeed the seat of the soul, and (3) the permanent loss of holistic integration and potencies is adequate proof of the soul’s absence from the body” (Verheijde and Potts 2010 ).…”

Section: Implications Of Neuroscientific Findings On the Debatementioning

confidence: 99%

Neuroscience and Brain Death Controversies: The Elephant in the Room

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The conception and the determination of brain death continue to raise scientific, legal, philosophical, and religious controversies. While both the President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research in 1981 and the President’s Council on Bioethics in 2008 committed to a biological definition of death as the basis for the whole-brain death criteria, contemporary neuroscientific findings augment the concerns about the validity of this biological definition. Neuroscientific evidentiary findings, however, have not yet permeated discussions about brain death. These findings have critical relevance (scientifically, medically, legally, morally, and religiously) because they indicate that some core assumptions about brain death are demonstrably incorrect, while others lack sufficient evidential support. If behavioral unresponsiveness does not equate to unconsciousness, then the philosophical underpinning of the definition based on loss of capacity for consciousness as well as the criteria, and tests in brain death determination are incongruent with empirical evidence. Thus, the primary claim that brain death equates to biological death has then been de facto falsified. This conclusion has profound philosophical, religious, and legal implications that should compel respective authorities to (1) reassess the philosophical rationale for the definition of death, (2) initiate a critical reappraisal of the presumed alignment of brain death with the theological definition of death in Abrahamic faith traditions, and (3) enact new legislation ratifying religious exemption to death determination by neurologic criteria.

show abstract

“…In other words, no definition of death that fails to take a living person, as seen in the Qur’an, can have a valid ground for acceptance in Islamic jurisprudence. (Sachedina 2000)Scholars in other Abrahamic faiths (Judaism and Christianity) have argued that the theological concept of death and departure of the soul from the human body was not necessarily consistent with the neurological diagnosis of brain death (Kunin 2004; Verheijde and Potts 2010). The debate on the definition of death for donating organs in Judaism has been reintensified as some Orthodox Jewish scholars have rejected the neurological criterion of death (The Lancet 2011).…”

Section: Islam and End-of-life Organ Donationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Brain-Dead Patients are not Cadavers: The Need to Revise the Definition of Death in Muslim Communities

Rady

Verheijde

2012

HEC Forum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The utilitarian construct of two alternative criteria of human death increases the supply of transplantable organs at the end of life. Neither the neurological criterion (heart-beating donation) nor the circulatory criterion (non-heart-beating donation) is grounded in scientific evidence but based on philosophical reasoning. A utilitarian death definition can have unintended consequences for dying Muslim patients: (1) the expedited process of determining death for retrieval of transplantable organs can lead to diagnostic errors, (2) the equivalence of brain death with human death may be incorrect, and (3) end-of-life religious values and traditional rituals may be sacrificed. Therefore, it is imperative to reevaluate the two different types and criteria of death introduced by the Resolution (Fatwa) of the Council of Islamic Jurisprudence on Resuscitation Apparatus in 1986. Although we recognize that this Fatwa was based on best scientific evidence available at that time, more recent evidence shows that it rests on outdated knowledge and understanding of the phenomenon of human death. We recommend redefining death in Islam to reaffirm the singularity of this biological phenomenon as revealed in the Quran 14 centuries ago.

show abstract

Commentary on the Concept of Brain Death within the Catholic Bioethical Framework

Cited by 15 publications

References 13 publications

Brain Death and the Dutch Organ Donation Law

Brain Death and the Dutch Organ Donation Law

Neuroscience and Brain Death Controversies: The Elephant in the Room

Brain-Dead Patients are not Cadavers: The Need to Revise the Definition of Death in Muslim Communities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About