Taking Science Seriously in the Debate on Death and Organ Transplantation

Death as the extinction of the source of value: the constructivist theory of death as an irreversible loss of moral status

In 2017, Michael Nair-Collins formulated his Transitivity Argument which claimed that brain-dead patients are alive according to a concept that defines death in terms of the loss of moral status. This article challenges Nair-Collins' view in three steps. First, I elaborate on the concept of moral status, claiming that to understand this notion appropriately, one must grasp the distinction between direct and indirect duties. Second, I argue that his understanding of moral status implicit in the Transitivity Argument is faulty since it is not based on a distinction between direct and indirect duties. Third, I show how this flaw in Nair-Collins' argument is grounded in the more general problems between preference utilitarianism and desire fulfillment theory. Finally, I present the constructivist theory of moral status and the associated moral concept of death and explain how this concept challenges the Transitivity Argument. According to my view, brain death constitutes a valid criterion of death since brain death is incompatible with the preserved capacity to have affective attitudes and to value anything.

Clinical Ethics and Professional Integrity: A Comment on the ASBH Code

The Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibilities for Healthcare Ethics Consultants instructs clinical ethics consultants to preserve their professional integrity by "not engaging in activities that involve giving an ethical justification or stamp of approval to practices they believe are inconsistent with agreed-upon standards" (ASBH, 2014, p. 2). This instruction reflects a larger model of how to address value uncertainty and moral conflict in healthcare, and it brings up some intriguing and as yet unanswered questions-ones that the drafters of the Code, and the profession more broadly, should seek to address in upcoming revisions. The objective of this article is to raise these questions as a way of urging greater clarification of the Code's overall approach to professional integrity, its meaning, and implications.

A New Defense of Brain Death as the Death of the Human Organism

This paper provides a new rationale for equating brain death with the death of the human organism, in light of well-known criticisms made by Alan D Shewmon, Franklin Miller and Robert Truog and a number of other writers. We claim that these criticisms can be answered, but only if we accept that we have slightly redefined the concept of death when equating brain death with death simpliciter. Accordingly, much of the paper defends the legitimacy of redefining death against objections, before turning to the specific task of defending a new rationale for equating brain death with death as slightly redefined.

Death pluralism: a proposal

The debate over the determination of death has been raging for more than fifty years. Since then, objections against the diagnosis of brain death from family members of those diagnosed as dead-have been increasing and are causing some countries to take novel steps to accommodate people's beliefs and preferences in the determination of death. This, coupled with criticism by some academics of the brain death criterion, raises some questions about the issues surrounding the determination of death. In this paper, we discuss some of the main approaches to death determination that have been theoretically proposed or currently put into practice and propose a new approach to death determination called "weak pluralism" as a reasonable ethical and political alternative to respect diversity in death determination.

Frequent Preservation of Neurologic Function in Brain Death and Brainstem Death Entails False-Positive Misdiagnosis and Cerebral Perfusion

Some patients who have been diagnosed as "dead by neurologic criteria" continue to exhibit certain brain functions, most commonly, neuroendocrine functions. This preservation of neurologic function after the diagnosis of "brain death" or "brainstem death" is an ongoing source of controversy and concern in the medical, bioethics, and legal literatures. Most obviously, if some brain function persists, then it is not the case that all functions of the entire brain have ceased and hence, declaring such a patient to be "dead" would be a false positive, in any nation with so-called "whole brain death" laws. Furthermore, and perhaps more concerning, the preservation of any brain function necessarily entails the preservation of some amount of brain perfusion, thereby raising the concern as to whether additional areas of neural tissue may remain viable, including areas in the brainstem. These and other considerations cast significant doubt on the reliability of diagnosing either "brain death" or "brainstem death."

Rationale for revisions to the definition of death and criteria for its determination in Canada

Clarity regarding the biomedical definition of death and the criteria for its determination is critical to inform practices in clinical care, medical research, law, and organ donation. While best practices for death determination by neurologic criteria and circulatory criteria were previously outlined in Canadian medical guidelines, several issues have arisen to force their reappraisal. Ongoing scientific discovery, corresponding changes in medical practice, and legal and ethical challenges compel a comprehensive update. Accordingly, the A Brain-Based Definition of Death and Criteria for its Determination After Arrest of Neurologic or Circulatory Function in Canada project was undertaken to a develop a unified brain-based definition of death, and to establish criteria for its determination after devastating brain injury and/or circulatory arrest. Specifically, the project had three objectives: (1) to clarify that death is defined in terms of brain functions; (2) to clarify how a brain-based definition of death is articulated; and (3) to clarify the criteria for determining if the brain-based definition is met. The updated death determination guideline therefore defines death as the permanent cessation of brain function and describes corresponding circulatory and neurologic criteria to ascertain the permanent cessation of brain function. This article explores the challenges that prompted revisions to the biomedical definition of death and the criteria for its determination and outlines the rationales underpinning the project's three objectives. By clarifying that all death is defined in terms of brain function, the project seeks to align guidelines with contemporary medicolegal understandings of the biological basis of death.

Brain death debates: from bioethics to philosophy of science

50 years after its introduction, brain death remains controversial among scholars. The debates focus on one question: is brain death a good criterion for determining death? This question has been answered from various perspectives: medical, metaphysical, ethical, and legal or political. Most authors either defend the criterion as it is, propose some minor or major revisions, or advocate abandoning it and finding better solutions to the problems that brain death was intended to solve when it was introduced. Here I plead for a different approach that has been overlooked in the literature: the philosophy of science approach. Some scholars claim that human death is a matter of fact, a biological phenomenon whose occurrence can be determined empirically, based on science. We should take this claim seriously, whether we agree with it or not. The question is: how do we know that human death is a scientific matter of fact? Taking the philosophy of science approach means, among other things, examining how the determination of human death became an object of scientific inquiry, exploring the nature of the brain death criterion itself, and analysing the meaning of its core concepts such as “irreversibility” and “functions”.

How many ways can you die? Multiple biological deaths as a consequence of the multiple concepts of an organism

According to the mainstream position in the bioethical definition of death debate, death is to be equated with the cessation of an organism. Given such a perspective, some bioethicists uphold the position that brain-dead patients are dead, while others claim that they are alive. Regardless of the specific opinion on the status of brain-dead patients, the mere bioethical concept of death, according to many bioethicists, has the merit of being unanimous and univocal, as well as grounded in biology. In the present article, we challenge such a thesis. We provide evidence that theoretical biology operates with a plurality of equally valid organismic concepts, which imply different conclusions regarding the organismal status of a brain-dead patient. Moreover, the theoretical biology concepts of an organism are very distant from the view on an organism that appears by way of bioethicists theorizing on death. We conclude that if death is to be understood as the cessation of an organism, there is no single correct answer to the question of whether a brain-dead patient is alive or dead.

The intractable problems with brain death and possible solutions

Brain death has been accepted worldwide medically and legally as the biological state of death of the organism. Nevertheless, the literature has described persistent problems with this acceptance ever since brain death was described. Many of these problems are not widely known or properly understood by much of the medical community. Here we aim to clarify these issues, based on the two intractable problems in the brain death debates. First, the metaphysical problem: there is no reason that withstands critical scrutiny to believe that BD is the state of biological death of the human organism. Second, the epistemic problem: there is no way currently to diagnose the state of BD, the irreversible loss of all brain functions, using clinical tests and ancillary tests, given potential confounders to testing. We discuss these problems and their main objections and conclude that these problems are intractable in that there has been no acceptable solution offered other than bare assertions of an 'operational definition' of death. We present possible ways to move forward that accept both the metaphysical problem - that BD is not biological death of the human organism - and the epistemic problem - that as currently diagnosed, BD is a devastating neurological state where recovery of sentience is very unlikely, but not a confirmed state of irreversible loss of all [critical] brain functions. We argue that the best solution is to abandon the dead donor rule, thus allowing vital organ donation from patients currently diagnosed as BD, assuming appropriate changes are made to the consent process and to laws about killing.

Aligning the Criterion and Tests for Brain Death

Disturbing cases continue to be published of patients declared brain dead who later were found to have a few intact brain functions. We address the reasons for the mismatch between the whole-brain criterion and brain death tests, and suggest solutions. Many of the cases result from diagnostic errors in brain death determination. Others probably result from a tiny amount of residual blood flow to the brain despite intracranial circulatory arrest. Strategies to lessen the mismatch include improving brain death determination training for physicians, mandating a test showing complete intracranial circulatory arrest, or revising the whole-brain criterion.

Inconsistencies Between the Criterion and Tests for Brain Death

The whole-brain criterion of death provides that a person who has irreversibly lost all clinical functions of the brain is dead. Bedside brain death (BD) tests permit physicians to determine BD by showing that the whole-brain criterion of death has been fulfilled. In a nonsystematic literature review, we identified and analyzed case reports of a mismatch between the whole-brain criterion of death and bedside BD tests. We found examples of patients diagnosed as BD who showed (1) neurologic signs compatible with retained brain functions, (2) neurologic signs of uncertain origin, and (3) an inconsistency between standard BD tests and ancillary tests for BD. Two actions can resolve the mismatch between the whole-brain criterion of death and BD tests: (1) loosen the whole-brain criterion of death by requiring only the irreversible cessation of relevant brain functions and (2) tighten BD tests by requiring an ancillary test proving the cessation of intracranial blood flow. Because no one knows the precise brain functions whose loss is necessary to fulfill the whole-brain criterion of death, we advocate tightening BD tests by requiring the absence of intracranial blood flow.

Legislative Enforcement of Nonconsensual Determination of Neurological (Brain) Death in Muslim Patients: A Violation of Religious Rights

Death is defined in the Quran with a single criterion of irreversible separation of the ruh (soul) from the body. The Quran is a revelation from God to man, and the primary source of Islamic knowledge. The secular concept of death by neurological criteria, or brain death, is at odds with the Quranic definition of death. The validity of this secular concept has been contested scientifically and philosophically. To legitimize brain death for the purpose of organ donation and transplantation in Muslim communities, Chamsi-Pasha and Albar (concurring with the US President's Council on Bioethics) have argued that irreversible loss of capacity for consciousness and breathing (apneic coma) in brain death defines true death in accordance with Islamic sources. They have postulated that the absence of nafs (personhood) and nafas (breath) in apneic coma constitutes true death because of departure of the soul (ruh) from the body. They have also asserted that general anesthesia is routine in brain death before surgical procurement. Their argument is open to criticism because: (1) the ruh is described as the essence of life, whereas the nafs and nafas are merely human attributes; (2) unlike true death, the ruh is still present even with absent nafs and nafas in apneic coma; and (3) the routine use of general anesthesia indicates the potential harm to brain-dead donors from surgical procurement. Postmortem general anesthesia is not required for autopsy. Therefore, the conclusion must be that legislative enforcement of nonconsensual determination of neurological (brain) death and termination of life-support and medical treatment violates the religious rights of observant Muslims.

Is there a place for CPR and sustained physiological support in brain-dead non-donors?

This article addresses whether cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and sustained physiological support should ever be permitted in individuals who are diagnosed as brain dead and who had held previously expressed moral or religious objections to the currently accepted criteria for such a determination. It contrasts how requests for care would normally be treated in cases involving a brain-dead individual with previously expressed wishes to donate and a similarly diagnosed individual with previously expressed beliefs that did not conform to a brain-based conception of death. The paper first focuses narrowly on requests for CPR and then expands its scope to address extended physiological support. It describes how refusing the brain-dead non-donor's requests for either CPR or extended support would represent enduring harm to the antemortem or previously autonomous individual by negating their beliefs and self-identity. The paper subsequently discusses potential implications of policy that would allow greater accommodations to those with conscientious objections to currently accepted brain-based death criteria, such as for cost, insurance, higher brain formulations and bedside communication. The conclusion is that granting wider latitude to personal conceptions around the definition of death, rather than forcing a contested definition on those with valid moral and religious objections, would benefit both individuals and society.

Campaigning for Organ Donation at Mosques

There is a trend of recruiting faith leaders at mosques to overcome religious barriers to organ donation, and to increase donor registration among Muslims. Commentators have suggested that Muslims are not given enough information about organ donation in religious sermons or lectures delivered at mosques. Corrective actions have been recommended, such as funding campaigns to promote organ donation, and increasing the availability of organ donation information at mosques. These actions are recommended despite published literature expressing safety concerns (i.e., do no harm) in living and end-of-life organ donation. Living donors require life-long medical follow-up and treatment for complications that can appear years later. Scientific and medical controversies persist regarding the international guidelines for death determination in end-of-life donation. The medical criteria of death lack validation and can harm donors if surgical procurement is performed without general anesthesia and before biological death. In the moral code of Islam, the prevention of harm holds precedence over beneficence. Moral precepts described in the Quran encourage Muslims to be beneficent, but also to seek knowledge prior to making practical decisions. However, the Quran also contains passages that demand honesty and truthfulness when providing information to those who are seeking knowledge. Currently, information is limited to that which encourages donor registration. Campaigning for organ donation to congregations in mosques should adhere to the moral code of complete, rather than selective, disclosure of information. We recommend as a minimal standard the disclosure of risks, uncertainties, and controversies associated with the organ donation process.

Moral Evaluations of Organ Transplantation Influence Judgments of Death and Causation

Two experiments investigated whether moral evaluations of organ transplantation influence judgments of death and causation. Participants’ beliefs about whether an unconscious organ donor was dead and whether organ removal caused death in a hypothetical vignette varied depending on the moral valence of the vignette. Those who were randomly assigned to the good condition (vs. bad) were more likely to believe that the donor was dead prior to organ removal and that organ removal did not cause death. Furthermore, attitudes toward euthanasia and organ donation independently predicted judgments of death and causation, regardless of experimental condition. The results are discussed in light of the framework of motivated reasoning, in which motivation influences the selection of cognitive processes and representations applied to a given domain, as well as Knobe’s person-as-moralist model, in which many basic concepts are appropriately imbued with moral features. On either explanatory framework, these data cast doubt on the psychological legitimacy of the mainstream justification for vital organ procurement from heart-beating donors, which holds that neurological criteria for death are scientifically justified, independently of concerns about organ transplantation. These data suggest that, rather than concluding that organ removal is permissible because the donor is dead, people may believe that the donor is dead because they believe organ removal to be permissible.