The Concept of Death

At our last meeting, Melissa Burchard, Ph.D. from UNCA, presented some of the latest thinking regarding ideas and definitions of death. Once upon a time, not long ago, the distinction between life and death seemed intuitively obvious to even a casual observer. Any questions were clarified within a short period of time. There were old tales of fingernail marks on the insides of coffins suggesting that some people may have been unwittingly buried alive although they showed no signs of a beating heart or spontaneous respiration. This fearful possibility was laid to rest by the development of the stethoscope which enabled physicians to detect a heart beat with increased sensitivity. For centuries, a heartbeat and spontaneous respiration served as the criteria for life. These comprise the cardiorespiratory criteria of life. Even if a human being was totally unconscious and unresponsive to external stimuli, as long as heartbeat and respiration were present, he/she was considered still alive.

Recently, the definition of death has shifted from emphasis on cardiopulmonary to neurological function, specifically, to signs of brain function. Technological innovation has added a new dimension and confounded the old definitions of life and death since the cardiopulmonary functions can now be taken over by artificial pumps and respirators. These functions may be maintained for long periods of time, even in totally unconscious and unresponsive human beings. Can these people be considered alive when they show none of the signs which make life for us significant and meaningful? It seems that it is consciousness which gives our lives their peculiarly human value. Therefore, the President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine & Biomedical & Behavioral Research came out in favor of a neurological conception of death: A person is dead when his or her entire brain has ceased to function. This can now be determined by sensitive instruments such as the EEG that can detect electrical activity in the brain of even unconscious human beings.

 Once brain cells are dead, there is no ability for recovery. Thus these criteria are referred to as ‘whole brain death’. Once whole brain activity ends, the cardiopulmonary functions would terminate. Consciousness is what gives our lives value. Once the ability for consciousness is permanently lost, can the ‘person’ be considered dead? Many agree that the definition of death should move from ‘whole brain activity’ to ‘cerebral cortical activity’ since the cortex is apparently responsible for consciousness and personhood as we understand them. Once cerebral cortical activity is irreversibly lost, our personhood, sense of individuality, personality, identity, ability to communicate verbally with other human beings and perhaps even to think to ourselves, are lost. The person may be considered dead. The person is thus distinguished from the human being and from just a living human body. Some might consider such a human body as having no soul.

Technological innovation has led to organ transplantation as a life-prolonging procedure as well as a cure for some diseases. The demand for organs for transplantation has far outstripped the available supply. If death could be considered as death of the person, organs could be ‘harvested’ while the body was still functioning. The organs would be fresher and more useful for transplantation. This expedient use acts as motivation for adopting the newer criteria. How far will we go?

The IAP has received confirmation of our non-profit status. This means we are able to receive tax-deductible contributions to support our programs. How about philosophy in our high schools? Ideas?

The next joint meeting of the IAP and the UNCA Dept. of Philosophy will be held on Wed. evening, April 5, 2000 at 7:30 pm. at the Kellogg Center, 11 Broyles Rd., just west of Hendersonville off route 64. Our topic for discussion will be Suicide. John McClain, Ph.D. from the department of philosophy of UNCA, will make the presentation.