Type of Submission
Poster
Keywords
Death, brain death, bioethics, medical principlism
Abstract
Researchers are continually discovering new medicinal therapies. Technology is advancing at an unprecedented rate, and modern medicine has turned into an expansive multi-trillion dollar enterprise. New tools such as ventilators and feeding tubes give doctors the ability to extend a person’s life beyond its natural limits. Conditions which used to kill 100% of victims no longer cause as many deaths per year. While these medical technologies bring about the benefit of longer human lives, they have created a new realm of ethical dilemmas. As the old adage goes, “With great power comes great responsibility.” If we have so much power, we must know how and when we can apply it.
Two recent medical cases highlight the need to establish ethical rules by which we may govern medical practice. In the first case, 14-weeks-pregnant Marlise Muñoz was declared brain dead and placed on life support. State laws mandated that the physicians keep her on life support to protect the fetus despite its nonviable status and despite the Muñoz family’s protests. Physicians eventually removed Muñoz from life support, allowing both her and her baby to die completely.
In the second case, 22-weeks-pregnant Robyn Benson was also declared brain dead and placed on life support. Benson’s child was delivered successfully at 34 weeks, and physicians removed Benson from life support the following day, allowing her to die completely.
These two cases present us with a difficult question: is it ever morally permissible to keep an irreversibly-damaged corpse on life support? I will argue that it is morally permissible to perfuse a corpse when doing so would give life to another human being. I will develop this idea by defining death, by evaluating our responsibilities to the dead, and by appealing to medical principlism to critique these two cases. My findings give physicians an ethical standard for clinical situations involving brain dead patients.
Faculty Sponsor or Advisor’s Name
Dr. Dennis Sullivan
Campus Venue
Stevens Student Center
Location
Cedarville, OH
Start Date
4-16-2014 11:00 AM
End Date
4-16-2014 2:00 PM
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.
Brain Death in Medical Ethics
Cedarville, OH
Researchers are continually discovering new medicinal therapies. Technology is advancing at an unprecedented rate, and modern medicine has turned into an expansive multi-trillion dollar enterprise. New tools such as ventilators and feeding tubes give doctors the ability to extend a person’s life beyond its natural limits. Conditions which used to kill 100% of victims no longer cause as many deaths per year. While these medical technologies bring about the benefit of longer human lives, they have created a new realm of ethical dilemmas. As the old adage goes, “With great power comes great responsibility.” If we have so much power, we must know how and when we can apply it.
Two recent medical cases highlight the need to establish ethical rules by which we may govern medical practice. In the first case, 14-weeks-pregnant Marlise Muñoz was declared brain dead and placed on life support. State laws mandated that the physicians keep her on life support to protect the fetus despite its nonviable status and despite the Muñoz family’s protests. Physicians eventually removed Muñoz from life support, allowing both her and her baby to die completely.
In the second case, 22-weeks-pregnant Robyn Benson was also declared brain dead and placed on life support. Benson’s child was delivered successfully at 34 weeks, and physicians removed Benson from life support the following day, allowing her to die completely.
These two cases present us with a difficult question: is it ever morally permissible to keep an irreversibly-damaged corpse on life support? I will argue that it is morally permissible to perfuse a corpse when doing so would give life to another human being. I will develop this idea by defining death, by evaluating our responsibilities to the dead, and by appealing to medical principlism to critique these two cases. My findings give physicians an ethical standard for clinical situations involving brain dead patients.
