Kant And Mills Theory On Brain Death

Introduction

Does a person really die when their brain dies? The topic of brain death has been examined for decades and although it is widely used as a definitive measure to determine human death, it remains a controversial topic of conflicting opinion, in which a clear consensus has yet to be reached. This paper will reflect on both proponents for and against using brain death as a determining factor in human death and the supporting evidence that has been published on each opinion. I will then apply Kant and Mills theory to each side of this argument in the hopes to reach a better understanding of this topic.

Kant and Brain Death

The concept of brain death isn’t easy to understand. In 1968 the Harvard Medical School Ad Hoc Committee led

From this study’s findings, an ethical issue arose and people began arguing that doctors were pushing for brain death diagnosis as a way to make much-needed organs more readily available. With the high demand for organs, Stein (2007) suggests that “Federal health officials, transplant surgeons and organ banks are promoting [brain death as synonymous with human death] as a way to meet the increasing demand for organs…” There are some doctors and bioethicists who are afraid that because of the high demand for organs, that medical practitioners will start to lose sight of what’s humane for the dying patient and instead focus on the best outcome for patients in need of organ transplants. (Stein, 2007) “It’s worrisome when you stop thinking of the person who is dying as a patient but rather as a set of organs, and start thinking more about what’s best for the patient in the next room waiting for the organs.” Gail A. Van Norman, an anesthesiologist and bioethicist at the University of Washington (as cited in Stein, 2007). Coming to an agreed upon consensus is important because if it is truly believed that taking an organ from a patient who is brain dead is taking an organ from an individual who is still technically living, then that may be considered intentional killing of that patient (Potts & Byrne, 2000). Immanuel Kant would agree that it would be going

Or should moral duty be the decision maker? It’s hard to come to a decision about what is right and wrong with these two arguments. I do tend to agree more with Kant’s beliefs in general but in this certain circumstance I do believe that once a person has been determined as brain dead, then there is nothing more that can be done to help this person and that they are dead from that point on. The only reason why it can even be considered that they are alive is because of life support. But can a person be considered meaningfully alive if they have no organ for thought and machines are being used that force the body to stay alive? I have gone through a personal experience with brain death; I lost my father to it after he suffered a cardiac arrest. After days of waiting to see what would happen after the tests had been run and after the doctors told us the prognosis, it was clear to see that there was nothing more that could be done. The decision was made to take him of life support and within minutes after that he passed away. Drawing from that experience, I can tell you that a person who is brain dead is basically dead. Every situation is different though but from my experience that is the conclusion that I am coming