Mcmahan And The Upper Brain Criterion Of Death

Sarah Shaut

PHI 237

Paper Topic #7

11/6/2017

McMahan and the Upper Brain Criterion of Death Determining when someone dies has been an important issue in medicine. There are many contradicting views on the specific criteria for death. Some people believe that death has one concept in which it is an irreversible biological phenomenon. Professor of philosophy, Jeff McMahan believes there is a need for two senses of death: a biological sense and one where you cease to exist. There is a difference between the organism dying and ceasing to exist. An organism can be dead, but the person does not cease to exist until it disintegrates because the organism’s body is still there. The upper brain criterion suggests that death occurs when there is an irreversible

Bernat believes that the upper brain criterion of death would pronounce many patients in persistent vegetative state and possibly severely demented patients as dead even though they are spontaneously breathing. Even though they have lost the ability to gain experience and incorporate social skills through conscious function, Bernat believes they are alive because their circulatory and respiratory systems are still functioning and in order for the organism to be dead, the entire brain and circulatory-respiratory system must not be functioning (Bernat). Bernat’s view suggests that death is explicitly biological and something that happens to organisms. Since we are human organisms, then our death means the death of a human organism. McMahan believes this assumes the person and the organism are identical to each other and that the concept of death is univocal. A problem would occur when considering the dicephalic-conjoined twin example. If the organism were identical to the person, then the conjoined twins is one person. Most do not believe this would be accurate because it is clear to see two separate people each with their own personalities and own ability to consciously function. This suggests that death needs to have more than one concept: death of a person and the death of an organism. It seems to make more sense to declare a person dead based on their death as a person because they can no longer communicate their needs, and possibly lose conscious control of their other regulatory functions. This shows just how important the upper brain is. If the person irreversibly lost consciousness, the person has ceased to exist even though the organism may still be functioning. The person is no longer there and will never come