Brain Death is an Indicator of Death
Name
Institution
Date
Brain Death is an Indicator of Death
The issue of brain death has been associated with various controversies especially by families after the loss of their loved ones due to diverse definitions of death. Olick, Braun and Potash (2009) account for confusion regarding brain death due to the diverse definitions of death. Recent technological advancements allow for the support of heart functioning despite brain death. A variety of individuals, as expressed by Olick and his colleagues, still consider a person with brain death as still being alive considering that their heart is still functioning through the support of the ventilator. This fact has caused differences among families of patients with brain dead patients. However, individuals who have brain death ought to be confirmed dead for a variety of reasons as discussed in the following sections. This discussion puts into consideration biological, philosophical and religious aspects.
Laureys (2005) explains that proof of irreversibility is an essential element in indicating death. Brain death results in irreversible loss of critical functions of the brain. In many cases, people who are in such as vegetative states or coma may recover either partially or fully. However, this is not the case for individuals with brain death. Wilson and Christensen (2014) explain that there has been no one who has ever recovered from brain death. The use of mechanical support does not prevent an individual from death of other organs gradually. In consideration of this, Wilson and colleague state that an individual ought to be declared dead once they have brain death.
According to Kasule (2013), brain death indicates the initiation of the death process. Brain death comprises an irreversible death of the brain functions, and it marks the onset of subsequent death of all other organs. The brain is responsible for commanding, coordination and communication of the various bodily functions. Its death hence results in the cessation of these functions resulting in the subsequent death of other organs.
One of the reasons why brain death should indicate death is because it captures in it the current definition of death. Laureys (2005) explains that the current definition of death is the cessation of an organism’s critical functions permanently. Such functions include such as circulation, and respiratory control and consciousness. The advent of brain death results in the cessation of these core functions. For instance, it results in cessation of such as breathing, heartbeat and consciousness indicating the death of an individual.
One of the philosophical view of life involves consciousness and wakefulness (Laureys, 2005). A person is considered to be alive if they can respond to the environment and indicate the presence of wakefulness. However, individuals who have brain damage do not respond to the environment and do not indicate wakefulness. These individuals do not indicate either autonomous or willed responses to the environment. They do not show any cortical functions in complimentary tests for the death of neocortical an indication of the absence of consciousness and wakefulness.
Individuals with brain death are considered to be alive on the basis that the body can still support functions of other visceral organs. However, the fact that these visceral organs can function does not imply that an individual in alive in the case of brain death. The functioning of the visceral organs suggests that the mechanical support is keeping them in a viable state after which their functioning later degenerates as marked by the development of asystole (Laureys, 2005).
A critical opponent of using brain death for the confirmation of death is that the brain is just one organ among many (Laureys, 2005). The body comprises of many other organs that are of equal importance to the brain. In consideration of this, it is not right or even ethical to use the brain in the determination of death. All organs are of equal importance in life and hence should be given equal consideration in the determination of the occurrence of death. Use of the brain death to confirm death seems to give the organ a special status despite it having similar functions of homeostasis and integration to the spinal cord.
Laureys (2005) also states that the use of brain death in the confirmation of death also fails to account for an individual’s ability to support visceral organ functioning, allow for gestation and even allow growth in children. Laureys accounts for various instances in which support has sustained individuals with brain death for several months. The ability of the body to allow these functions to continue functioning indicates that there is still life despite the individuals having brain death.
Opponents of the use of brain death in the confirmation of death state that life cannot be viewed from the perspective of a single organ. In this case, the opponents indicate that death should be perceived to have occurred if all the organs are not functioning. Therefore, brain death should not be viewed as death since other organs may still be functioning. However, such an argument is misinformed and narrow. The occurrence of brain death ultimately leads to the death of other organs despite the presence of mechanical support. This progressive death of organs after the onset of brain death is irreversible. Therefore, brain death, at its least, marks the onset of death. Individual with brain death should hence be declared dead since they cannot recover. Despite the various controversies, brain death should be the ultimate indicator of death. Brain death has been shown to be irreversible, mark a progressive death of other visceral organs and lack of consciousness or wakefulness. It is marked by the absence of critical functions of life that include cardiorespiratory functions that opponents of brain death use to confirm death. The discussion above reveals that individuals with brain death do not recover despite being under mechanical support. Families of such patients should hence not wait for the recovery of their patients but should rather accept the fact that their loved ones are indeed dead. Such acceptance will help to avoid resource wastage and allow for tissues and organs for research of transplants to be obtained.
References
Kasule, O. H. (2013). Brain death: criteria, signs, and tests. Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences, 8(1), 1-6.
Laureys, S. (2005). Death, unconsciousness and the brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6(11), 899-909.
Olick, R. S., Braun, E. A., & Potash, J. (2009). Accommodating religious and moral objections to neurological death. J Clin Ethics, 20(2), 183-191.
Wilson, J. & Christensen, J. (2014, January 7). Why brain dead means really dead. CNN. Retrieved from http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/06/health/brain-dead-basics/index.html