Setta Susan M, Shemie Sam D
Department of Philosophy and Religion, Northeastern University, 360 Huntington Ave., Boston, 02115, MA, USA.
Division of Pediatric Critical Care, and Medical Director, Extracorporeal Life Support Program at Montreal Children's Hospital, McGill University Health Centre, 2300 Rue Tupper, Montréal, QC, H3H 1P3, Canada.
Philos Ethics Humanit Med. 2015 Mar 11;10:6. doi: 10.1186/s13010-015-0025-x.
This paper explores definitions of death from the perspectives of several world and indigenous religions, with practical application for health care providers in relation to end of life decisions and organ and tissue donation after death. It provides background material on several traditions and explains how different religions derive their conclusions for end of life decisions from the ethical guidelines they proffer.
Research took several forms beginning with a review of books and articles written by ethicists and observers of Bön, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Indigenous Traditions, Islam, Judaism, Shinto and Taoism. It then examined sources to which these authors referred in footnotes and bibliographies. In addition, material was gathered through searches of data bases in religious studies, general humanities, social sciences and medicine along with web-based key word searches for current policies in various traditions.
Religious traditions provide their adherents with explanations for the meaning and purpose of life and include ethical analysis for the situations in which their followers find themselves. This paper aims to increase cultural competency in practitioners by demonstrating the reasoning process religions use to determine what they believe to be the correct decision in the face of death.
Patterns emerge in the comparative study of religious perspectives on death. Western traditions show their rootedness in Judaism in their understanding of the human individual as a finite, singular creation. Although the many branches of Western religions do not agree on precisely how to determine death, they are all able to locate a moment of death in the body. In Eastern traditions personhood is not defined in physical terms. From prescribing the location of death, to resisting medical intervention and definitions of death, Eastern religions, in their many forms, incorporate the beliefs and practices that preceded them. Adding to the complexity for these traditions is the idea that death is a process that continues after the body has met most empirical criteria for determining death. For Hinduism and Buddhism, the cessation of heart, brain and lung function is the beginning of the process of dying--not the end.
本文从多个世界宗教和本土宗教的视角探讨死亡的定义,并为医疗保健提供者在临终决策以及死后器官和组织捐赠方面提供实际应用。它提供了几种传统的背景材料,并解释了不同宗教如何从它们提出的伦理准则中得出临终决策的结论。
研究采用了多种形式,首先回顾了伦理学家以及苯教、佛教、基督教、印度教、本土传统、伊斯兰教、犹太教、神道教和道教的观察者所撰写的书籍和文章。然后检查了这些作者在脚注和参考文献中引用的资料来源。此外,通过在宗教研究、一般人文科学、社会科学和医学数据库中进行搜索,以及基于网络的关键词搜索各种传统中的现行政策,收集了相关材料。
宗教传统为其信徒提供了关于生命意义和目的的解释,并包括对其信徒所处情况的伦理分析。本文旨在通过展示宗教用于确定它们认为面对死亡时正确决策的推理过程,提高从业者的文化能力。
在对宗教死亡观的比较研究中出现了一些模式。西方传统在将人类个体理解为有限的、独特的创造物方面显示出其源于犹太教。尽管西方宗教的许多分支在如何精确确定死亡方面没有达成一致,但它们都能够在身体中找到死亡时刻。在东方传统中,人格不是从身体角度来定义的。从规定死亡地点,到抵制医疗干预和死亡定义,多种形式的东方宗教都融入了先于它们的信仰和实践。这些传统的复杂性还在于,死亡是一个在身体达到大多数确定死亡的实证标准之后仍在继续的过程。对于印度教和佛教来说,心脏、大脑和肺功能的停止是死亡过程的开始——而不是结束。