No one can clearly articulate the feeling that one experiences at death. While many people have a fear for death, there are many people who have come back from experiences that are close to death. These people who have had near death experiences have told pleasant experiences of life after death. For many people who have experienced these near death phenomenons, they have an unquestionable and steady belief on the presence of life after death (Hoof, p. 132). However, scientists believe that near death experiences are merely hallucinations produced by dying brains that are comparable to vivid dreams. In my view, near death experiences provide no proof of life after death. I also hold that near death experiences are not dreams; they are real occurrences that serve to explain the human understanding of death. Still, like Professor Stan van Hooft would say, death is death, and the separation soul from the body is a dogma perpetuated by religions ( p. 136)
Christians hold the view that human beings are immortal and that the dead have a soul that live in heaven. This soul only ascends to heaven if the dead were a good person while alive. Primarily this understanding stems from Plato’s view on the topic of death. The dilemma of the contemporary world is to dissect the metaphysical understanding of death and combine it with more appropriate and realistic scientific and common sense understanding. According to Stan Van Hooft, the conventional understanding of death falls short because of its premise of denial. There is need for humanity to accept the reality of death. The conventional Judeo-Christian values that depict death as the soul leaving the body refuse to accept the truth that death is the end of life just like life is the beginning of life. In reality, “ any doctrine of life after death is such a refusal” (p.1).
If one disregards the conventional understanding of death as the beginning of another life, then he or she would join the scientific bandwagon that argues that argues that death is cessation of vital functions of thee body. In real sense, death is ideally “ the change in the functioning of the body ” (Harvard Medical School). These theory grapples with the meaning and definition of the most important functions. It leaves to wonder the vital organs that would lead to an end of life. Clinically, the implication for such an understanding in the view of Stan Van Hooft is that the definition of vital would mean that the rest of the body would be available for organ transplanting. The body of patients declared dead medically but with functioning organs becomes valuable for helping other patients.
Perhaps another problem that arises in the understanding of death is the succinct understanding of when death occurs. It is often very complicated for one to deduce when death occurred. The use of sophisticated medical equipments would provide analysis and the trend of how the body eventually ceased operating but would not tell when the person eventually died. For example, the heart may stop beating at one time but the breathing may continue another time. One remains with the question of when the person actually died. It is hard for one to say that an individual is half dead under such circumstances. The Harvard Medical School engaged in a study to explore a definitive understanding of when death occurs. According to this study done in 1960s, it was argued that the irreversible coma as determining factor in declaration of death. Eventually it was agreed that an individual l was declared dead if the nervous system was broken down. This has come to be called brain death. According to this report, one is declared dead if the if the brain ceases to function even if the heart is still beating ( pg. 89).
However, this still did not escape criticism. The brain works in compartments each with different functions. The brain steam is in charge of functions such as breathing, heartbeat, and others. The cerebral on the other hand is in charge of consciousness, intelligence, and subjectivity. The two parts of the brain can each be distinctively damaged. These led to the debate on whether the use of the brain as the standard measure of death is accurate. While a group of bioethistcs argue that neo-cortex is the true measure of death while the brain stem can still function and exercise its role of breathing. This presents the dilemma of a “ breathing corpse or a living corpse”. So what is what? And when is one declared dead?
Willard Gaylin again raises this matter in the article “Harvesting the Dead”. In the article, Gaylin argued the Harvard Medical School’s determination of death by using the brain. According to Willard, the legal understanding of death adopted by the committee had nothing tio do with the common understanding of death. He described the new cadaver as “neomort” that is a word coined to describe newly dead. According to him, the brain dead, as argued by the Harvard committee would be functioning as a normal living organism except with little variation arising from the collapsed of the servosystem. The newly dead also called “neomort” ( 16).would be stored in life supporting system so that they are ready to support lives of dying individuals.
The premise of the article challenges the possibilities arising from such a scenario. One scenario would be the uneasy and inexperienced medical student performing medical examinations on neomorts and the students and the patient could be spared the pain of the first activity. Similarly, interns could practice more difficult and diagnostic procedures and surgery without complications and risks. The argument is that these neomorts are already dead. Gaylin also asks us to consider the storage and harvesting benefits of the neomorts. There had been problems of storing major organs. How about a population of neomorts maintained under a computerized system? While Gaylin admits the good side of the new definition of death and its benefits to the society, he has a problem of ethics accruing mainly from the idea of terminating people’s lives for the sake of medical reasons.
Gaylin requires us to become ethical about the whole new meaning while taking into considerations the meaning of ethics and its connection to life. The model of “brain death” reads 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. A determination of death must be made according to accepted medical standards.”
On his part, Gaylin warns of an unknown future price that we could pay for choosing utility over sentiments. In his premise, he reasons that the new definition of death was urgently needed due to technological advancements or the increasing use of body parts of the new dead but it wasn’t the best of choices. The debate should not be about Gaylin’s attitude; it should be about the definition of death. Unless a clear and succinct definition of death is found, the debate would not be over.
The traditional view of the individual as a combination of the body, soul and the spirit places value on the person as a sprit while giving little value for the organs. According to Plato’s thinking, the body was a prison or hindrance to the spiritual and intellectual soul. In the Christian world, the sould was the most important part of the human existence. This explains why saints in the crusade wars inflicted pains on themselves while pursuing religious freedom. The question is, if the body was nothing compared to the soul, why would Gaylin, a self-declared ethicist complain about the use of the body while in death?
Culturally, the understanding of death is that it is a separation of the soul from the body. Death is the starting point of a new and fresh life and in most cases, a better life. Under this understanding, death is a door that opens and leads to a new form of life. In the Hindi understanding, death and birth are exits and entrances to new lives. In this sense, death and life does not exist. In the medical profession, a greater deal of study ought to understand that death does not mark the end of life, in essence it marks the beginning of a new life. The new life does not need material body but only spiritual body. Under these circumstances, the use of organ body parts does not go contrary to the expectations of the conventional religions. However, in science, death marks the end of life, the cessation of the meaning of existence and the beginning of the end of life. These two views run concurrently and are inseparable depending on the culture, meaning and time.
References
Ad Hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School. (1960). A Definition of Irreversible Coma. Special Communication.
Gaylin, W. (1996). Harvesting the Dead. Harcout Brace College Publishers, 163-180.
Hooft, S. V. (2004). Life, Death, and Subjectivity: Moral Sources in Bioethics. Fort Worth: Radopi.
