Introduction
Anyone tackling any part of the topic of death remains subjective, philosophical, scientific, and arbitrary, as is the case in my view that separation of the soul from the body captures the significance of death as proposed in this paper. From the onset in my taking this view the implication points to the philosophical because as of this time in the 21st century there exists no known method for determining the separation of the ephemeral quality of the soul from the physicality of the body .That is the finality of the entire debate. \However, it is this very concern of the functionality of the human body whether on its on volition or by the use of modern medical technology that drives the debate on the issue.
Death is Separation of the Soul
As living organisms, the human body is at the very least a complex container for the soul -and there is no other purpose for the human body except as a container for the soul. The human experience lay in the physicality of the body as a container with the ability to move through the physical world, interact with other humans as well as its environment. From this subjective and philosophical perspective, this paper sets its premise on what constitutes the death of a human being and the morality of keeping a brain dead human being’s body “alive” by the use of machines.
Therefore, substantiating the topic of whether it matters if an understanding of what constitutes death becomes a matter of whether keeping a brain dead person “alive” through the user of machines is moral -- or not. It does matter what we as humans decide is death as correlated with the view of Belshaw (2008) but rather, death has a duality as proposed by Hooft (2004) just as it does in life. There is the existence of both a soul and a body.
My taking the view once the soul leaves the body then death occurs aligns with the medical view of death at the very least in the abstract sense. That is when the human brain no longer makes the organs work - the brain no longer “can’ send electric signals to the lungs and heart then the brain is deadthe person no longer lives and it is a matter of letting time and the body itself shut down. Therefore when no brain activity exists then the body no longer serves its purpose as a container for the soul’s carnation experiencing the physical world. Thus, this sets the stage for the argument of the immorality of keeping a brain dead person body alive by medical machines as argued by Hooft (2004).
At this juncture bringing in bioethics fit’s the argument posed in this paper. Again, the subjective nature of my position takes precedence as I hold the existence of a soul that uses the human body simply put as a container for experiencing the physical world but more importantly using the cognitive abilities of the human brain as the underpinning of the human experience of free will and precepts of spirituality/religion. Even this is not as simplistic as I dare insinuate. Briefly, the precepts of the human existence and the evolution of the soul there exists specific criteria that veers away from the points engendered in the topic of death.
Hooft (2004) at great lengths discusses the bioethics aligned with death and other issues of what biologically constitutes death among all living organisms. Herein, his discussion of how most bio-organisms do cease functioning in the molecular design either because they have come to the end of the life-cycle or as a result of outside forces but that they do not really cease living altogether as the decaying process initiates a continuum of life. In kind, at the physical level this same thing happens with the full functioning demise of the human body organically. However, here the similarities for the position I take for this paper takes a significant departure with the philosophical framework of death of the human body occurring once the soul permanently departs because it no longer can use or chooses to use the human body for a container for its journey in the temporal existence.
Keeping a human body declared brain dead functioning through the means of artifices provided by the medical wonders of human creation in my opinion is neither prudent nor showing dignity to the individual. Pragmatically the lack of prudence in doing so is the enormous cost factor that makes absolutely no sense. Other than maintaining the individual’s last wishes as an organ donor, does it make sense prolonging the function of a human body that has no working brain (Hooft, 2004)?
The lack of respect and caring for the dignity of the brain dead human being comes under the auspices of what Hooft (2004) talks about in bioethics. Inflicting the undignified treatment of a human being kept breathing and their heart beating because of the machinery attached making these things continue is a gross ethical wrong. Today, the living will allows people to make it clear if they become incapacitated on the brain level to the point they no longer have any cognitive existence of any proportion then they have the legal means to assure their body dies of its own volition. However, beware the situation a person without such a legal dictate become brain dead and family members decide to hook them up to machines.
As both Belshaw (2008) and Hoof (2004) discuss, allowing the brain dead body shut down and cease on its own volition remains a biologically ethical policy. Within this span of time that varies from individual to individual the soul may “choose” to stay of its own volition further experiencing the physicality of its body’s demise. Again, subjectively and philosophically this is without proof but from the perspective of my philosophical view makes absolute sense.
Looking at a living human being is the same as looking at two distinct things because of the mind/soul and the living body/organism. Of course, because of the logistics of the inability to view the mind/soul the assumption of this part does exist. A good number of the eight billion and counting “souls” around the global community as well as I accept the metaphysical precept of this entity existing in ourselves as explained by Hooft (2004).
Further, humans having the ability accessing the soul intrinsically and with recognizing its possession of the conscious applications of the human process through the function of the brain as proposed by Hooft (2004) fit the substance of my subjective philosophy on the topic of death. Again, Hooft (2004) writes of the literature explaining the inability of the human body thinking without something driving it to do so and here is the perfect fit of the soul driving the functionality of the brain -- even a brain with limitations of functionality due to birth or accidental damage. So within the functioning brain as Hooft (2004) describes exists a mind driven by the existence of a soul.
Within the mind exists the soul. The soul makes the consciousness of choices providing a
pragmatic focus while the organism of the brain makes the key components of the body feel, smell, hear, see, and speak. The body alive understands the perspective of its location in the world because the functioning brain allows perception.
The soul occupying its place in the brain then experiences these same things and with the cognitive abilities of the body human then discerns the philosophical underpinnings as the ancient Greeks wisely proposed of what makes a life worth living based upon ethics, morality, humanism, humanitarianism, compassion, and the other framing distinctions of metaphysical realities. Within this understanding, the existence of the soul and the body living as a symbiotic partnership underscores my perspective in this paper. (Hooft, 2004)
The body as Hooft (2004) aptly explains is the means for human existence understanding what it needs. The human body remains capable of its own awareness because it is a conscious organism capable of retaining memories from a past and organizing them for personal needs in a present as well as planning for a meaningful and directed future.
Within this process, the soul exists as the main driver of the self-conscious. Herein, at this juncture of my position the departure of the soul from the human body signifies the true physical death of the individual arising at the crux of the issue. As long as a human body continues living on its own volition even with such severe damage due to illness or an outside incident as long as it is ‘’not’’ hooked up to a machine the soul may still reside in the biological body and thus as an organism the person lives.
Conclusion
Anyone tackling any part of the topic of death remains subjective, philosophical, scientific, and arbitrary, as is the case in my view that separation of the soul from the body captures the significance of death as proposed in this paper. Once a human brain ceases the ability of self-realization -- once it is brain dead and it is allowed the dignity of its body shutting down on its own volition -- in other words dying on its own with a dignified death of the organism, then and only then according to my subjective philosophy supported by the references cited in this paper does the actual death of the individual take place when the soul departs. This
is directly due to the inability of the human organism supporting the method of being a person.
References
Christopher Belshaw, Annihilation: The Sense and Significance of Death, Stocksfield, UK: Acumen, 2009.Stan van Hooft, Life, Death, and Subjectivity: Moral Sources in Bioethics, Amsterdam and New York, Rodopi, 2004.
