What We Argue About When We Argue About Death

被引:0
作者
Aas, Sean [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Georgetown Univ, Washington, DC USA
[2] Georgetown Univ, Kennedy Inst Ethics, Washington, DC 20057 USA
来源
JOURNAL OF MEDICINE AND PHILOSOPHY | 2024年 / 49卷 / 04期
关键词
brain death; definition of death; pluralism; BRAIN-DEATH; DONOR RULE; DEFINITION; CRITERION; JUSTICE;
D O I
10.1093/jmp/jhae016
中图分类号
B82 [伦理学(道德学)];
学科分类号
摘要
The literature on the determination of death has often if not always assumed that the concept of human death should be defined in terms of the end of the human organism. I argue that this broadly biological conceptualization of human death cannot constitute a basis for agreement in a pluralistic society characterized by a variety of reasonable views on the nature of our existence as embodied beings. Rather, following Robert Veatch, I suggest that we must define death in moralized terms, as the loss of an especially significant sort of moral standing. Departing from Veatch, however, I argue that we should not understand death in terms of the loss of all moral status whatsoever. Rather, I argue, what we should argue about, when we argue about death, is when and why people lose their rights-claims to the protection and promotion of their basic bodily functioning.
引用
收藏
页码:399 / 413
页数:15
相关论文
共 41 条
[1]  
Amundson R., 2000, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, V31, P33, DOI DOI 10.1016/S1369-8486(99)00033-3
[2]  
Anderson Elizabeth., 2010, Measuring Justice: Primary Goods and Capabilities
[3]  
Aviv R., 2018, NEW YORKER
[4]   Individual choice in the definition of death [J].
Bagheri, A. .
JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS, 2007, 33 (03) :146-149
[5]  
Chiong W, 2005, HASTINGS CENT REP, V35, P20
[6]  
Choong K. A., 2013, J MED LAW ETHICS, V1, P5
[7]  
Cvijanovic H, 2007, POLIT MISAO, V44, P162
[8]  
Daniels Norman., 2008, JUST HLTH
[9]  
DeGrazia David., 2005, Human Identity and Bioethics
[10]  
Gervais Karen., 1986, REDEFINING DEATH