Human Death and High Technology: The Failure of the Whole-Brain Formulations

  1. STUART J. YOUNGNER, M.D.; and
  2. EDWARD T. BARTLETT, Ph.D.
  1. Cleveland, Ohio

    Abstract

    Modern technology has raised questions about the definition of death, and various factors that influence public policy about declaring people dead. The widely accepted "whole-brain" definition of death is inadequate and should be replaced by a definition of "irreversible loss of consciousness and cognition." Any definition that identifies the innate ability of the organism to "integrate" itself or function "as a whole" should be rejected. The proponents of such definitions fail to provide a standard for the selection of essential sub-systems. The innate integration of vegetative functions cannot be used as the necessary and sufficient condition for life. A person without innate integration can still be alive; a dead person retaining just this function can survive as a living, mindless organism. Only cognitive functions have a spontaneity that is, in principle, irreplaceable.

    Article and Author Information

    • ▸From the Center for the Critically Ill, University Hospitals and Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, and the Department of Philosophy, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, Ohio.

    • Grant support: in part by a grant from The Cleveland Foundation.

    • ▸Requests for reprints should be addressed to Stuart Youngner, M.D.; University Hospitals, 2040 Abington Road; Cleveland, OH 44106.

    « Previous | Next Article »Table of Contents