This chapter defends a narrow neurological criterion of death, which says that the permanent cessation of higher brain, or cortical, function is sufficient for the death of a person. It distinguishes between persons and human organisms, and argues that we are essentially persons rather than organisms. This distinction is elaborated by considering different conceptions of the soul, as well as different perspectives on when the soul leaves the body. It is argued that only persons, and not human organisms, can have interests. The capacity for consciousness is necessary to have interests, and this capacity is an essential property of persons but not of human organisms. Insofar as benefit and harm are defined in terms of the satisfaction or defeat of interests, only persons can benefit or be harmed. This argument is critical for exploring the ethical implications of brain death. It is particularly critical for analyzing ethical questions about the permissibility or impermissibility of such actions as withdrawing life-support and procuring organs for transplantation.
Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.