"Sense" of being "alive"
Should we disregard the respect for a brain-dead person for the benefit of pro-longing lives? The issue is complex because too many perspectives surrounding one who dies, partially. I am inclined to take the stand of a more utilitarian one - that brain-dead is a form of death because simply, the consciousness is irreversible. What is left perhaps is only the feeling of a loved one around.Evaluating the issue from a more social side, the families of the patients involved. It will be that of the brain-dead person and the person who desperately needs an organ transplant to live. The choice appears simple for both. The former would wish for their loved one to be left untouched as far as possible in hope of remedies, needless to say, not to be killed for the benefit of another. The latter would definitely be hopeful for that donation that would bring back the loved one.
Certainly, the transplant produces higher success rates since it has been performed in many instances. My point may not exactly be kind on the family of the brain-dead or (if the person may still think) on the brain-dead person. But we must face the facts: once the mind dies, sensations are irrelevant and memories which we all really treasure and hope to protect is eliminated. It is not only impractical to retain the body through large-scale life support systems but frankly a meaningless effort.
Should opponents bring up the point that respect is due for the dead, brain-dead or completely dead, I feel we are looking at an inappropriate form of respect. Seriously, how do we define the respect when we have never gone into that situation? Removing that organ could be respect for that person as well. From the past till today, we haven't had a fixed way of respecting the dead; it varies from cultures to cultures. An epitome of a strayed form of respect can be found in ancient Egypt where mummification of the dead nobles requires removal of most of the dead's organs. That was considered the ultimate respect then. The point is that, respect for the dead is not like for a living human who can tell you what he/she feels when being treated or mistreated for us to classify which actions are being respectful or disrespectful. We cannot impose our living "feelings" on the dead simply because we cannot have known from them their emotions.
Respect is thus a vaguely fixed action for the dead or brain-dead, who both do not possess the ability to feel.
The author quotes the extreme measures of using heparin and phentolamine which keeps the organ alive at the expense of the patient's comforts or care but hastens their cardiac death. This way of looking at it likens the brain-dead as a normal human feeling. Who really feels the comforts or care? Will it be the 'victim' or even more inventive, the victim's family. If brain death retains its meaning, then the victim shouldn't have feeling in the first place. The family of the victim is undeniably close to him/her but that does not mean they can feel on behalf of him/her.
Personally, I feel a form of respect for the brain-dead could be sustaining his/her organs which are the last of him/her left in this world. That could be done transplanted or left on the patient's seemingly lifeless body. The former would definitely be more pragmatic. The argument will always be flawed though since no one, I expect, can come up with a determinate way of respecting the brain-dead.
posted by synthesis @ 12:49 AM
1 Comments:
As with your comment. i see that we are both coming from different directions with yours being the uitalitarian point of view. Fair enough. But i do not find your assertion that respect is a vaguely fixed concept a strong enough support for the killing of a brain-dead patient for the sake of one whose brain is not dead. In that same insinuation, I could say that repsect for the one who is not brain dead is also vague and so the brain dead should not be scarificed to save them. In an interesting side note, what if brain transplants are actually possible? Then your take on the form of respect can no longer stand, because both sides can be saved from their dangers then. Your assertion that once a person is brain dead, all his sensations and memories are gone can be true but is callous in the fact that you do not put in consideration for the family of the deceased. As is purported in the article preceding our writing on this particularly thorny issue, the writers point out explicitly that the family of the brain dead person still hold on to them. Call them impractical on your terms if you might, but you may not deny those feelings totally without any consequence. The parallel drawn between Egyptian mummification and the donation of organs is actually a false analogy. For them, they believed that i was the only way a body could be preserved and consequently, the only way the soul could be protected for its perilous journey to the underworld, where one shall eventually meet Anubi the God of Death and Osiris, the lord of the Underworld. The removal of the organs here would be emotional comfort for the egyptian family involved, not so for the modern family. Therefore, these two contrasting situations may not be taken in the same manner. And just because A brain dead person cannot express his emotions to you does not mean that he can be denied respect. Perhaps you would like to explain your second last point better (confused by it :P). and in my opinion your last statement is a non statement for no argument can be flawless, and also definitely, there can be no determinate way to respect the brain dead just like how different ethnic and religious groups conduct funerals. In the meantimes however, I do not believe the absence of such jurisdiction would be reason and excuse enough to go around extracting organs just like that.
Post a Comment
<< Home