Unknown

Dataset Information

0

Minds, brains, and hearts: an empirical study on pluralism concerning death determination.


ABSTRACT: Several authors in bioethics literature have expressed the view that a whole brain conception of death is philosophically indefensible. If they are right, what are the alternatives? Some authors have suggested that we should go back to the old cardiopulmonary criterion of death and abandon the so-called Dead Donor Rule. Others argue for a pluralist solution. For example, Robert Veatch has defended a view that competent persons should be free to decide which criterion of death should be used to determine their death. However, there is very little data on people's preferences about death determination criteria. We conducted online vignette-based survey with Latvian participants (N?=?1416). The data suggest that the pluralist solution fits best with the way our study participants think about death determination-widely differing preferences concerning death determination criteria were observed. Namely, most participants choose one of the three criteria discussed in the literature: whole brain, higher brain, and cardiopulmonary. Interestingly, our data also indicate that study participants tend to prefer less restrictive criteria for determination of their own deaths than for determination of deaths of their closest relatives. Finally, the preferences observed in our sample are largely in accord with the Dead Donor Rule for organ procurement for transplantation.

SUBMITTER: Neiders I 

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7223492 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

altmetric image

Publications

Minds, brains, and hearts: an empirical study on pluralism concerning death determination.

Neiders Ivars I   Dranseika Vilius V  

Monash bioethics review 20200501 1


Several authors in bioethics literature have expressed the view that a whole brain conception of death is philosophically indefensible. If they are right, what are the alternatives? Some authors have suggested that we should go back to the old cardiopulmonary criterion of death and abandon the so-called Dead Donor Rule. Others argue for a pluralist solution. For example, Robert Veatch has defended a view that competent persons should be free to decide which criterion of death should be used to d  ...[more]

Similar Datasets

| S-EPMC4034606 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC6176627 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC5953997 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC6426326 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC10349986 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC8083004 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC8551943 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC9932362 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC8722350 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC6869955 | biostudies-literature