Tomlinson T
J Med Philos. 1984 Nov;9(4):377-93. doi: 10.1093/jmp/9.4.377.
The whole brain-death criterion of death now enjoys a wide acceptance both within the medical profession and among the general public. That acceptance is in large part the product of the contention that brain death is the proper criterion for even a conservative definition of death - the irreversible loss of the integrated functioning of the organism as a whole. This claim - most recently made in the report of the Presidential Commission and in a comprehensive article by James Bernat and others - is based upon a series of fallacious arguments. Chief among these is the argument that whole brain-death is the proper criterion for the conservative definition because the brain is the organ that integrates the rest of the organism. A central part of the paper shows that this argument rests upon a confusion between a function and the mechanism that performs it, and replies to the defenses that the Presidential Commission makes on this point. The concluding portion of the paper argues that this issue is not merely of academic interest, but has the potential for undermining the present consensus that supports the use of whole brain-death criteria.
如今，全脑死亡判定标准在医学界和普通公众中都得到了广泛认可。这种认可在很大程度上源于这样一种观点，即脑死亡即使对于保守的死亡定义而言也是恰当的标准——即整个生物体不可逆转地丧失整体整合功能。这一观点——最近在总统委员会的报告以及詹姆斯·伯纳特等人的一篇全面文章中有所阐述——是基于一系列谬误论证。其中最主要的是这样一个论点，即全脑死亡是保守定义的恰当标准，因为大脑是整合生物体其他部分的器官。论文的核心部分表明，这一论点基于功能与其执行机制之间的混淆，并回应了总统委员会在这一点上的辩护。论文的结论部分认为，这个问题不仅具有学术意义，而且有可能破坏目前支持使用全脑死亡标准的共识。
