Inconsistency between the Circulatory and the Brain Criteria of Death in the Uniform Determination of Death Act

Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 48 (5):422-433 (2023)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) provides that “an individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead.” We show that the UDDA contains two conflicting interpretations of the phrase “cessation of functions.” By one interpretation, what matters for the determination of death is the cessation of spontaneous functions only, regardless of their generation by artificial means. By the other, what matters is the cessation of both spontaneous and artificially supported functions. Because each UDDA criterion uses a different interpretation, the law is conceptually inconsistent. A single consistent interpretation would lead to the conclusion that conscious individuals whose respiratory and circulatory functions are artificially supported are actually dead, or that individuals whose brain is entirely and irreversibly destroyed may be alive. We explore solutions to mitigate the inconsistency.

Author Profiles

Alberto Molina-Pérez
Instituto de Estudios Sociales Avanzados (IESA-CSIC)

Analytics

Added to PP
2022-05-12

Downloads
408 (#46,720)

6 months
172 (#21,040)

Historical graph of downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.
How can I increase my downloads?