Moschella Melissa
Bioethics. 2016 Oct;30(8):550-6. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12258. Epub 2016 May 10.
As is clear in the 2008 report of the President's Council on Bioethics, the brain death debate is plagued by ambiguity in the use of such key terms as 'integration' and 'wholeness'. Addressing this problem, I offer a plausible ontological account of organismal unity drawing on the work of Hoffman and Rosenkrantz, and then apply that account to the case of brain death, concluding that a brain dead body lacks the unity proper to a human organism, and has therefore undergone a substantial change. I also show how my view can explain hard cases better than one in which biological integration (as understood by Alan Shewmon and the President's Council) is taken to imply ontological wholeness or unity.
正如总统生物伦理委员会2008年的报告中所明确指出的,脑死亡辩论因“整合”和“整体性”等关键术语使用上的模糊性而备受困扰。为了解决这个问题,我借鉴霍夫曼和罗森克兰茨的研究成果,提出了一个关于有机体统一性的合理本体论解释,然后将该解释应用于脑死亡案例,得出结论:脑死亡的身体缺乏人类有机体应有的统一性,因此经历了实质性的变化。我还展示了我的观点如何比那种认为生物整合(如艾伦·休蒙和总统生物伦理委员会所理解的)意味着本体论整体性或统一性的观点能更好地解释疑难案例。