Department of Philosophy, Kutztown University of Pennsylvania, Kutztown, PA 19530, USA.
J Med Ethics. 2011 Dec;37(12):743-6. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2011-100109. Epub 2011 Oct 11.
The 'decapitation gambit' holds that, if physical decapitation normally entails the death of the human being, then physiological decapitation, evident in cases of total brain failure, entails the death of the human being. This argument has been challenged by Franklin Miller and Robert Truog, who argue that physical decapitation does not necessarily entail the death of human beings and that therefore, by analogy, artificially sustained human bodies with total brain failure are living human beings. They thus challenge the current neurological criterion for determining death and argue for a return to the traditional criterion of the irreversible loss of circulation and respiration. In this paper, I defend the decapitation gambit and total brain failure as a criterion for determining death against Miller and Truog's criticism.
“斩首策略”认为，如果物理斩首通常会导致人类的死亡，那么在全脑衰竭的情况下出现的生理斩首也会导致人类的死亡。富兰克林·米勒和罗伯特·特鲁格对这一论点提出了质疑，他们认为物理斩首不一定会导致人类的死亡，因此，类比地说，全脑衰竭的人工维持的人体仍然是活着的人类。他们因此对目前用于确定死亡的神经学标准提出了挑战，并主张回归到循环和呼吸不可逆丧失的传统标准。在本文中，我捍卫了“斩首策略”和全脑衰竭作为确定死亡的标准，反驳了米勒和特鲁格的批评。
