Perhaps accuse me of sociologism , but I will say the same: the ways of understanding the death are contingent and have evolved in different societies throughout history . Pronounced dead at a subject has relied on different criteria in different places, a situation that continues to this day.
For example in ancient Greece, the criteria for defining death was cardiopulmonary: what determined the death of a person was to stop heart throb. In Jewish tradition, however, breathing was the central criterion for defining death. Our modern societies, differentiated, complex, technologically advanced and plural entangled the question of the definition and this becomes the subject of debate between different views, many of them reasonable but irreconcilable, which is to live.
Something that often happens today is that many rely on science as a source of a definitive answer, true and indisputable, but that's naive. not so easy. As stated in Article 'Death encafálica bioethics and organ transplantation ', published in the Medical Journal Chile 2004, "the definition is a task primarily philosophical , the choice of the criterion is primarily medical and selection of evidence is a matter exclusively medical ." Ie death is defined philosophically and science serves to contrast the definition with reality through rigorous testing. Or is that science really can not settle by itself, once and for all the discussion. The same article suggests the following criteria:
For example in ancient Greece, the criteria for defining death was cardiopulmonary: what determined the death of a person was to stop heart throb. In Jewish tradition, however, breathing was the central criterion for defining death. Our modern societies, differentiated, complex, technologically advanced and plural entangled the question of the definition and this becomes the subject of debate between different views, many of them reasonable but irreconcilable, which is to live.
Something that often happens today is that many rely on science as a source of a definitive answer, true and indisputable, but that's naive. not so easy. As stated in Article 'Death encafálica bioethics and organ transplantation ', published in the Medical Journal Chile 2004, "the definition is a task primarily philosophical , the choice of the criterion is primarily medical and selection of evidence is a matter exclusively medical ." Ie death is defined philosophically and science serves to contrast the definition with reality through rigorous testing. Or is that science really can not settle by itself, once and for all the discussion. The same article suggests the following criteria:
Death is the cessation of life. Life being essentially organization death, which is its opposite, is in essence disorganization or disintegration. Defining death as the loss of this organization, or cessation of operation of the organism as a whole, we believe that full brain death (brain death), this definition better represents the cessation of circulation and respiration . The brain as a whole is responsible for the integration of the organism as a whole, and this integrating function is more complex than circulatory connection reproducible in a preparation perfused artificial organs. Nobody would say that a decapitated alive, but they can keep the heart beating for a time and would be theoretically possible to restore circulation and breathing artificially.
Chile accepts the criterion of brain death since 1996 , but there is a caveat: it is used only for the case of organ transplantation. That is, according to the law 19451 (. Pdf) which regulates the organ, a subject with brain death could be considered dead and alive in some cases in others:
For the purposes provided in this Act , death certification is accredited by unanimous and unambiguous, granted by a team of doctors, one of whom, at least, should perform in the field of neurology or neurosurgery. (...). Certification is granted when it is found complete and irreversible abolition of all brain functions.
same, although brain death seems to operate only for purposes of organ transplantation, the article Medical Journal of Chile contains a very interesting statement on this very topic:
organ transplantation in virtually converge all the ethical problems of medicine, so it has come to consider a bioethical micromodel, which advances the discussion and resolution of problems, applied later in other fields of medicine .
If we define that life ends with brain death and accept that the debate about organ transplantation is that seeks to address many bioethical dilemmas, debate which then has consequences in other areas, we can draw some conclusions. Accept that a subject is dead for certain purposes, while others do not, it sounds absurd. The least we could do is to standardize the criteria and apply in all cases.
.
Continuing with the idea, we talked a lot of death, but little of life, some will say that no human life when the soul enters the body, other than from fertilization, others from the implantation of the embryo, but Is it not possible to use the same criteria of the presence / absence of brain activity begins to define when human life?
.
.
0 comments:
Post a Comment