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

SUBMITTER: Neiders I 

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

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature