Postmodernism Comes to Death Itself
In postmodernism, facts don't matter as much as desired narratives, and now this view is being proposed as a way to define death itself--which would permit people to choose ahead of time when they were to be considered to have, as the Bard had it, shuffled off this mortal coil.
This is not a new idea and its most prominent advocate is probably the Georgetown University bioethicist Robert Veatch, who suggests that people decide for themselves when they will be considered dead for organ harvesting. From the story about all this in Reuters:
Most ordinary people, including most physicians, assume whether you're dead or alive is a science question," Veatch, a Georgetown University medical ethics professor who has lectured about death and dying for over three decades, told Reuters.Except that it would be a fiction, based on a narrative that would have the effect of transforming death from a biological event into a sociological one. Moreover, it could well lead to the confusing circumstance of one living, breathing person being declared dead, while the patient in the next bed with the same symptoms would still be considered alive. And once we get to decide when we are dead, why limit it to the profoundly disabled. There are plenty of people who suffer terrible tragedies who consider their lives over: Why not just make it official? Worst of all, if some dead people were actually living, we couldn't bury them--which I guess would create the need for someone to knock them on the head with a hammer or inject a drug to the "cadaver's" beating heart to actually get the job done so that organs could be harvested. Hey, Jack Kevorkian is looking for work!"In my view, it's a philosophical and religious issue and different people have different views on the matter," he said at a bioethics seminar at Georgetown's Kennedy School of Ethics. Thanks to medical progress, terminally ill patients or victims of severe accidents can be kept on life support far beyond the point where they would have died naturally.
Veatch asked if being permanently unconscious and dependent on feeding and hydration tubes is
still really life. If not, then people taken off that support are not killed, he argued, but are "made dead" or they "become dead".
The traditional view is that death occurs when the heart and lungs stop. Since the 1970s, Western countries have defined it as the irreversible loss of the entire brain's functions.But the brain stem can keep basic functions going -- such as breathing -- even in a permanent vegetative or comatose state.
So since 1973 Veatch has been advocating a third definition saying that death sets in when the higher brain functions--the thinking and feeling that make us human--are lost.This means death comes when consciousness is permanently lost, he said: "If you've got the substratum in your brain for consciousness, you're alive. If that's gone, you're dead." Veatch suggests the law set a default definition, most likely whole brain death, and let individuals opt out and sign a statement saying they want to be declared deceased either by cardio-respiratory death or higher brain death.
Maybe we should just ask plumbers what to do. At least they tend to have common sense.
Labels: Definition of Death.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 10:26 PM
21 Comments
21 Comments:
Wesley, you and I view birth and death (the beginning and ending of human life) quite differently. As I understand you, you see them as simple and consistent matters that are obviously identifiable at a moment in time. I see them as highly complex processes of emergence and regression that extend over periods of time and regularly include considerable variations. If we abstract them away from their details enough, questions about them become deceivingly simple. However, that does us a disservice, in that it promotes dogmatism rather than investigation. Investigation has increasingly revealed the complexity of these processes, and a great deal of human ignorance, which, in my estimation, should humble us into asking deeper questions rather than retrenching into old assumptions. That is not to say that we should not seek to protect our values, but our values are best defended and promoted through appeals to more rather than less information.
Appeals to common sense simply are not a good defense of knowledge claims. History has demonstrated that repeatedly. Appeals to common sense are only a good defense of practicality claims, relative to particular contexts; and we should recognize that contexts are not static and so practicality claims should adjust over time.
We already have far more knowledge regarding the processes of birth and death than has had any other known civilization, and trends suggest that this knowledge is going to increase rapidly and dramatically. Consequently, we should expect that our views of these matters will continue to change to reflect our new knowledge. The change need not be for the worse. I hope for a better future, where we use more information to make better decisions guided by an expanding compassion. There is no reason to value human life less. No amount of additional information can force that value decision on us. That's simply a choice.
Perhaps I'm not writing much that you disagree with. I just wanted to express my impression that you are unnecessarily shying away from delving into the complexity of birth and death processes.
Yeah, birth sure is complex. First the mother gets contractions, then the cervix open, then she pushes, then the top of the baby's head comes out, then the whole head, then the shoulders...
Oh, wait, that wasn't what you meant. You meant the development of the child from conception on? Or did you perhaps mean biological conception?
And what does "simple" mean? Biologically, digesting your food isn't "simple" but rather requires a lot of complex machines. But no one thinks this has enormous moral relevance.
Muddying the waters by talk of "complexity" really doesn't make either the moral or the biological waters muddy. Finding out more and more about fetal development or about the effects of the destruction of brain tissue doesn't really make it okay to dehydrate people to death or to tear unborn infants to pieces. But talk about "complexity" can make it seem so.
Lincoln is exactly right...the beginning and ends of human life are not bright lines but complex processes. There's no objective place to say, here's where a human being begins and ends. The argument over where life begins is well-trodden, but where it ends is also controversial. You don't have to be a postmodenist to know that! Doctors have wrestled with this for a long time ... is it the heart stopping, brain death...if you think it's simple, you're confused, or just simply trying to deny the complexity of the situation for political reasons, or perhaps because the reality of the complex world is scary and you're taking refuge in a make-believe world where things are simple. Just please don't try to impose that on the rest of us.
The "complication" does not come from biology, but from philosophy, ideology. Biologically we know when a new human organism has come into being: it is upon the completion of the fertilization process in which the new organism has its own genome and is a unique, discrete, integrated individual. And don't talk twinning: That is merely one of the potentialities possessed by the unique organism for a period of time in its development. Indeed,if twinning occurs, then there are two unique organisms. But the capacity to twin does not mean that the embryo is not a living organism.
Death too is a biological process in which this organism ceases to operate in an organized, integrated fashion. In other words, even if there are still some cells that are alive, after death, it is not an organism any longer. (Thus, if you remove the heart and it keeps beating, this does not mean that the heart is a living organism. It is merely a heart that can beat for a time. Similarly, the fact that hair grows for a bit after life ceases, does not make the cadaver alive since it is not acting as an integrated organism.
We complicate what constitutes the beginning and end of human life for reasons of utility and ideology. (Ironically, this is generally done by people who claim the mantle of rationality and as defenders of science.) We want to be able to engage in ESCR, and so we say that embryos are really only pre-embryos that are mere chemical processing cell bundles. We want to harvest organs, so we say that a PVS patient is really dead.
But these arguments aren't scientific. Indeed, it is postmodern biology--a corruption of science--because the biological facts don't matter, or better stated, get in the way of what we want to do and get a good night's sleep. So, we adhere to the narrative instead of the facts.
The questions of birth and death, biologically, is not really all that complicated which is why I would trust a plumber with these matters far more than a Ph.D.
The "complication" does not come from biology, but from philosophy, ideology.
You are completely wrong. Doctors who have no interest in postmodernism and without any ideological ax to grind have to deal with the question of defining death on an everyday basis. It's just not a simple issue. There's much more variability than there is in the beginning of life, for one thing.
We complicate what constitutes the beginning and end of human life for reasons of utility and ideology.
Perhaps, but we simplify complex issues for similar reasons.
Biologically we know when a new human organism has come into being: it is upon the completion of the fertilization process in which the new organism has its own genome and is a unique, discrete, integrated individual.
I notice you say "organism" rather than "person". That's smart, because a fertilized zygote that has not yet implanted is not treated as a person by even the most rabid pro-lifers. In other words, you are wrong.
The questions of birth and death, biologically, is not really all that complicated which is why I would trust a plumber with these matters far more than a Ph.D.
So, why do we need you and the Discovery Institute when we have plumbers to consult about the weighty matters of life and death?
I would trust some plumbers over some Ph.D.s, particularly your idol Leon Kass.
The US population is roughly evenly divided on abortion issues. I don't think one side is all Ph.D.s and the other plumbers, although I would bet that is more education on the pro-choice side than the other.
mtraven, it seems to me that the complexity and ambiguity of these issues is actually an argument for erring on the side of caution when dealing with both the beginning and ending of life. If we value human life, then we must use the more generous possible limits for it rather than the more restrictive. That is, by the way, how one can argue for protecting a "fertilized zygote" even if it's not visualized as a "person".
"that the complexity and ambiguity of these issues is actually an argument for erring on the side of caution when dealing with both the beginning and ending of life."
ahh....that would mean moral life should begin before conception, hence, sperm and ova should be given the right to life.
otherwise, we aren't really 'erring on the side of life'.
Bernhardt, that is at least a more coherent position than pretending that the boundaries of lives and persons are crystal clear and obvious and agreed to by all.
Unfortunately it leaves out other considerations. "valuing life" is not the only human value. Certainly not to the extent that we should treat all fertilized zygotes as persons, which would immediately raise the infant mortality rate to around 40-50%.
Wesley likes to talk about human exceptionalism. One of the exceptional things about humans is that we have conscious rational control over some of our biological processes. That means we exert choices about when a person starts and ends. I find it curious that the same people who defend human exceptionalism are the same ones who can't stand the thought of human intervention in reproduction, and seem to think that the only acceptable way to reproduce is the same way animals do it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Royale, so you agree, then, that the clear, restrictive, non-erring marker of the beginning of life as a human person is conception? Great, we're making progress! ;-)
An amazing thing about science is that while on the one hand, it functions according to the maxim that no theory is ever so set as to be beyond disproof, on the other hand it depends for its functioning entirely on the law of non-contradiction. Even if the conclusions it draws are not in the least intuitive (such as those of quantum physics), the reasoning it uses to arrive at those conclusions depends on the rule that "a thing cannot be both true and not true in the same instant" (to quote Wikipedia).
It becomes impossible to reason or draw any conclusions if you insist that a thing can be both one thing and another at the same moment. Your mind dwells in wishful thinking, settling here or there depending on whim. It is one thing to use hard logic and reasoning to come to the conclusion (as happens in Buddhist philosophies) that a thing is only itself by virtue of being other than itself (which means, more or less, that all things are interdependent and impermanent). But you can't start there. You can't pretend to be enlightened, above all the petty reasoning of mere pendants. You have to examine phenomena, as well as possible, on their own terms: which is to say that a rock is a rock, a fish is fish, an embryo is an embryo, and a dead body is not a live one. To do otherwise certainly is to dwell in complexity; but Middle Earth is also very complex, and we laugh at those who try to dwell there.
Royale, no one is arguing that gametes are organisms. No one has, no on will. Leave off with the red herrings.
mtraven: Now, we are getting somewhere. For good moral reasoning in these matters, we have to at least begin with scientific accuracy. A zygotic embryo is a new, distinct, and individual human organism. That needs to be acknowledged with proper moral reasoning. Science can tell us its capacities, its potential, and etc. But it cannot tell us its value. To determine that, we begin with the proper science--which is my point--and then move on to other issues from there. You don't just change the science to fit the narrative. Do that, and you are not acting scientifically, and indeed, if you claim you are, you corrupt science itself.
As to procreation, I oppose human cloning. But at least you seem to admit that cloning creates a human organism. If you refer to IVF, I have never objected to that process of fertility treatment.
Bernhardt should also come to terms with the simple belief that considering a newborn as a Human Person is also a pure conception?
There's absolutely no "person" on a newborn who's as dumb as a chicken... Can we even consider 3 year olds as persons? Or are they only half-persons? Surely they lack the reasoning, knowledge and rational capacities of grown ups?
The definition of person has developed into a patheticaly political abstract... and who the frak came up with the "surely the pro-choice people have more knowledge" crap? I'm yet to see pro-choicer's coming up with ways to aid women who are forced into "choices" they dont wanna make... (newsflash: not all women want to have an abortion... just task their lazy-ass boyfriends/husbands)
gee... last time i checked the very first feminists were anti abortion... were those women ignorant of their condition?
Were they such ignorants as to believe their freedom lies on the hability to dismember unborn foetuses?
And were have all the feminists pro-lifers gone? Here http://www.feministsforlife.org/
What the frak happened to atheist pro lifers? here http://www.godlessprolifers.org/library/jones1.html
Were's Libertarians pro-life? here
http://www.l4l.org/
mtraven writes:
"valuing life" is not the only human value. Certainly not to the extent that we should treat all fertilized zygotes as persons, which would immediately raise the infant mortality rate to around 40-50%.
So we shouldn't do so simply because the infant mortality rate will look worse? I'm sure that's not actually your point. Your mistake seems to be in assuming that the only options are 1) zygotes have no moral value, and 2) zygotes are exactly equivalent morally to an infant. You are ignoring a third possibility: while nascent human life has less moral weight than fully developed human life, it still carries enough that we should refrain from intentionally destroying it or treating it merely as a resource.
Be careful not to start thinking in caricatures on this -- there is more variety and subtlety on this side of the fence than you seem to assume.
That means we exert choices about when a person starts and ends. I find it curious that the same people who defend human exceptionalism are the same ones who can't stand the thought of human intervention in reproduction...
But it's not simply the fact that we "exert choices" that is the concern -- it's what choices we make, and more fundamentally, the kind of morality that stands behind them.
Ricardo, I think you're confusing me with someone else in your comment above.
My apologies to Wesley.. this post isnt about abortion... yeah i know... :( but i just read a pretty pathetic line about the pro-life people... and... just had to woop some a**!
And i'm pro-choice... hehe
Bernhardt.. the first bit was adressed to you but the prolife prochoice stuff just wasnt adressed your way... i've read your other posts with a lil more attention, just forget i ever wrote that :) hehe
bernhard said:So we shouldn't do so simply because the infant mortality rate will look worse? I'm sure that's not actually your point.
The point is that we don't and never will treat fertilized zygotes as full-fledged human persons.
Your mistake seems to be in assuming that the only options are 1) zygotes have no moral value, and 2) zygotes are exactly equivalent morally to an infant.
I don't think I said anything remotely like that. For one thing, I would never say that things or persons have moral value. Only actions have moral value.
You are ignoring a third possibility: while nascent human life has less moral weight than fully developed human life, it still carries enough that we should refrain from intentionally destroying it or treating it merely as a resource.
I would agree with the broad point that a nascent human life (zygote/embryo/fetus) is in some intermediate state between neutral raw matter and a full-fledged human person. It is in a liminal object, to use some jargon.
The question is not how or what should be done to such intermediate entities, but who gets to make that decision.
mtraven: I don't think I said anything remotely like that. For one thing, I would never say that things or persons have moral value. Only actions have moral value.
Are you kidding? How can you judge the morality of the action then?
Example: A man is walking his dog. I shoot and kill them both. I then pull out a weed and kill it.
You could judge my actions as morally reprehensible. But why? Was it the shooting of the gun? No. It was the murder of the man precisely because he was a human being.
The killing of the dog is also reprehensible--but not as reprehensible as the murder of the man. Why? Because the dog has less moral value than the man.
The killing of the weed has no moral impact because it is not a moral agent. If the weed, however, were an endangered species, it would--not because the plant had moral value but because of my human duty to preserve endangered species.
Hence, we would judge all of my actions based on the impact on the moral agents or objects involved.
Actions don't happen in a vacuum. By definition, they act and impact beings or things, and we judge the morality of these actions, at least in part, based on the value we give to the actee.
Here's another example, this time of judging inaction based on moral worth: I am driving down a road. A child runs into the street and I strike him accidentally and unavoidably. If I don't stop, render aid, and seek help, I am guilty of a terrible act of immorality. Why? Because the child is entitled to assistance based on his humanity.
Change the struck being to a squirrel. I will feel badly, but I probably won't stop the car. No moral judgment. Why? The squirrel has less moral value than the child. But if it were a dog, I would try and render aid or find the owner. Again, because we perceive the value of the dog as higher than the squirrel.
"I notice you say 'organism' rather than 'person'. That's smart, because a fertilized zygote that has not yet implanted is not treated as a person by even the most rabid pro-lifers."
He probably said "organism" because you might be talking about a mouse embryo, or a sheep embryo, or a human embryo. An ovine embryo is already a sheep, a canine embryo is already a dog, and a human embryo is already a human being -- whether implanted or not -- and so, yes, it's appropriate to speak of that embryo as being a person.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home