Death's Troubled Relationship With the Law
Death's legal definition must be responsive to advances in technology, and it must delineate between life and death. But where to draw the line is difficult to determine. Death's current legal definition requires irreversible cessation of cardiorespiratory function or irreversible cessatio...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | AMA journal of ethics 2020-12, Vol.22 (12), p.E1055-1061 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Death's legal definition must be responsive to advances in technology, and it must delineate between life and death. But where to draw the line is difficult to determine. Death's current legal definition requires irreversible cessation of cardiorespiratory function or irreversible cessation of all brain function. But technology can often restore some brain functions without restoring consciousness, so brain death is often diagnosed without the irreversibility requirement being met. This article argues that the law should be updated to require
cessation, not
cessation and that medicine should be transparent about what
means. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 2376-6980 2376-6980 |
DOI: | 10.1001/amajethics.2020.1055 |