Suppr超能文献

仅依靠神经学标准判定死亡的道德非法性:天主教对“脑死亡”的回应

The Moral Illicitness of Relying Solely on Neurological Criteria for the Determination of Death: A Catholic Response to "Brain Death".

作者信息

Vacca Michael Arthur

机构信息

Christ Medicus Foundation (CURO), Troy, MI, USA.

出版信息

Linacre Q. 2023 Aug;90(3):260-272. doi: 10.1177/00243639231189330. Epub 2023 Aug 2.

Abstract

This paper presents the biological, philosophical, and theological arguments against "brain death" or death determined strictly through neurological criteria. It is rooted in a realistic, Thomistic metaphysical and anthropological view of the human person and the objective reality of death. Part I of the paper reviews the medical evidence that the bodies of those declared brain death are alive and makes clear that the bodies of "brain dead" patients are not biologically analogous to severed body parts. Part II presents the philosophical and theological argument that it is impossible to be a live human being and not a person. Since then those declared brain dead are somatically alive, they are live human persons with the right to life and cannot be subject to the extraction of vital, unpaired organs, since this would violate the dead donor rule. Part III reviews why the Magisterium has not unconditionally approved the determination of death through neurological criteria, and why it would be within the competence of the Magisterium to preclude medical professionals from determining death strictly through neurological criteria. The paper argues that there should be a ban on all vital, unpaired organ donation from "brain dead" donors.

摘要

本文提出了反对“脑死亡”或严格通过神经学标准判定死亡的生物学、哲学和神学论据。它基于对人类个体以及死亡客观现实的一种现实的、托马斯主义的形而上学和人类学观点。本文第一部分回顾了医学证据,即那些被宣布脑死亡者的身体是活着的,并明确指出“脑死亡”患者的身体在生物学上与被切断的身体部位并不类似。第二部分提出了哲学和神学论据,即不可能既是活着的人类个体却又不是一个人。既然那些被宣布脑死亡者在躯体上是活着的,他们就是拥有生命权的活着的人类个体,不能被摘取重要的、不成对的器官,因为这将违反死亡器官捐献规则。第三部分回顾了为何教义部没有无条件地批准通过神经学标准判定死亡,以及为何教义部有权禁止医学专业人员严格通过神经学标准判定死亡。本文认为,应该禁止从“脑死亡”捐献者身上摘取所有重要的、不成对的器官。

相似文献

2
Organ Donation and Declaration of Death: Combined Neurologic and Cardiopulmonary Standards.
Linacre Q. 2019 Nov;86(4):285-296. doi: 10.1177/0024363919840129. Epub 2019 May 20.
3
Do the 'brain dead' merely appear to be alive?
J Med Ethics. 2017 Nov;43(11):747-753. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2016-103867. Epub 2017 Aug 28.
4
A Thomistic defense of whole-brain death.
Linacre Q. 2015 Aug;82(3):235-50. doi: 10.1179/2050854915Y.0000000005.
6
Does Controlled Donation after Circulatory Death Violate the Dead Donor Rule?
Am J Bioeth. 2023 Feb;23(2):4-11. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2022.2040646. Epub 2022 Mar 3.
7
Of wholes and parts: A Thomistic refutation of "Brain Death".
Linacre Q. 2015 Aug;82(3):217-34. doi: 10.1179/2050854915Y.0000000004.
8
Role of brain death and the dead-donor rule in the ethics of organ transplantation.
Crit Care Med. 2003 Sep;31(9):2391-6. doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000090869.19410.3C.
9
Organismal death, the dead-donor rule and the ethics of vital organ procurement.
J Med Ethics. 2018 Dec;44(12):868-871. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2018-104796. Epub 2018 Jun 19.
10
Brain Death and Human Organismal Integration: A Symposium on the Definition of Death.
J Med Philos. 2016 Jun;41(3):229-36. doi: 10.1093/jmp/jhw007. Epub 2016 Apr 23.

本文引用的文献

1
Heart transplantation following donation after circulatory death: Expanding the donor pool.
J Heart Lung Transplant. 2021 Sep;40(9):882-889. doi: 10.1016/j.healun.2021.03.011. Epub 2021 Apr 8.
2
Humility before New Scientific Evidence: We No Longer Have Moral Certainty that "Brain Death" Is True Death.
Linacre Q. 2019 Nov;86(4):314-326. doi: 10.1177/0024363919874606. Epub 2019 Sep 20.
3
Brain Death and Human Organismal Integration: A Symposium on the Definition of Death.
J Med Philos. 2016 Jun;41(3):229-36. doi: 10.1093/jmp/jhw007. Epub 2016 Apr 23.
4
Total Brain Death and the Integration of the Body Required of a Human Being.
J Med Philos. 2016 Jun;41(3):300-14. doi: 10.1093/jmp/jhw005. Epub 2016 Apr 20.
6
A Thomistic understanding of human death.
Bioethics. 2005 Feb;19(1):29-48. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2005.00423.x.
7
Brain death, the soul, and organic life.
Natl Cathol Bioeth Q. 2002 Autumn;2(3):455-70. doi: 10.5840/ncbq20022332.
8
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey.
Wests Supreme Court Report. 1992 Jun 29;112:2791-885.
9
Roe v. Wade. 22 Jan 1973.
U S Rep U S Supreme Court. 1973;410:113-78.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验