Human Life and Death

What does it mean for a human to be alive? The notions of human life and death are becoming increasingly relative and illusive, and warrant further examination and discussion. There seems to be a natural and logical symmetry between the very young and the older patients.  If we accept the definition of death as being the absence of electrical activity in the brain, then a logical beginning of human life would should be when electrical activity in the brain begins.  However, viewing the beginning of human life as being when higher brain activity begins could have unacceptable repercussions for end of life issues.  Are we asking the right questions?

The standard medical definition of death is: “Death is an irreversible, biological event that consists of permanent cessation of the critical functions of the organism as a whole.” If there has been a determination of brain death and circulatory death, then the patient is dead. If one is not dead, then surely one must be alive. However, when the issues and options arise in any given situation, the notions of life and death become foggy and relative to the question at hand. Is the patient in a hospital, in the woods, is organ donation being considered, are medications or confounding circumstances mimicking death, what religious beliefs are held by the patient or family or care providers, is the patient an underdeveloped newborn, have we added synthetic biology, is the patient being frozen, in what jurisdiction is the patient located, what is the cost benefit analysis, and can or should we put a price on the risk of mortality or morbidity? It seems that a human is really alive when a fetus becomes viable, and as long as circulation and brain activity continue. When these critical functions cease, then a human is really dead. All other conditions are relative.

"Bioethics" Should Be Expanded to Include Its Real Roots

The term “Bioethics” was first used by Fritz Jahr and referred to our ethical perspective and obligations to all living beings.  Jahr’s view is summed up in the Bioethical Imperative, which states that we should:  “Respect every living thing on principle as an end in itself and treat it, if possible, as such.”  This means, taking Jahr’s and Jeffrey Bishop’s Aristotelian lead, we should grasp the full nature of the living being in focus at any given time, its efficient, material, formal, and final causes.  Current Bioethics discussions most often regard Medical Ethics, and talk of human patients in terms of the body’s material and efficient causes.  Formal causes would include how the person or living being, in its circumstances and relationships, engages with the world.  Final causes include purposes, potential, and robust intentions.  If we expand our bioethical perspective to the global level as Van Rensselaer Potter does, we see that supporting the environment and the survival of all living beings, people and all living beings can maintain their full natures on a long-term basis.  Approaching the world with the Bioethical Imperative as a foundation provides a full and inclusive framework for important discussions and decisions.