Cardiopulmonary Death Essay

The definition of death is crucial for the benefit of the person, their family, and those who wait for organs. The first definition, the total stoppage of the circulation of the blood, and cessation of vital functions such as the heart and lungs. Cardiopulmonary considers the state of deep irreversible unconsciousness life and disregards the necessity of organs (Pojman 101). Thus, the second definition is declaring death despite vital signs like cardiopulmonary death—whole brain death concludes the cerebrum (higher brain) and brainstem (lower brain) losing function is the end of life (Pojman 102). Similarly, it involves the death of an organism. Indifference, it allows for functioning organs to be harvested before being damaged by time and it limits the definition of life. The final

definition is neocortical brain death, it merely considers the consciousness of one and claims that the death of the cerebrum is the death of the person (Pojman 103). It is the most controversial case since it argues the vital point of human existence as consciousness and organs can still function at death. There is no consensus in the medical community which argument is most compelling—it draws many issues regarding finance, the benefit of organ transplants, and mainly ethics.

The soundest argument is neocortical brain death, for its immense consideration of humanity through an ethical utilitarian perspective.

Otherwise, cardiopulmonary death is faulted for its definition of life. It overall is financially improbable and considers those without functioning brains to be alive, consequently minimizing organ transfer. As well, whole brain death is unreasonable for its consideration of the state of unconsciousness to be life. For both cases, the state of comatose is merely a state of life to emotionally support loved ones and financially is a detriment—no benefit to the patient. Convincingly, neocortical brain death considers life to end at the permanent state of unconsciousness. It is unfair to declare life where it is no longer experienced, and as well for the loved one’s memories to be tainted by a state of eternal sleep is taxing. Additionally, the demand for organs is unfathomable, the move toward neocortical brain death would increase the lives saved. Ultimately, the person society cares about ceases to exist when the cerebrum is no longer functioning; ethically it is considerate to declare death at this stage and it is for the betterment of

society.

The uncertainty of higher brain death contends the argument. It is difficult to understand that a breathing, moving being could be considered dead. It draws question as to whether a fetus or even a newborn permanently in comatose would be defined dead. Consequently, it is inhumane to adopt the view and it would be difficult for one to accept that death can be defined when organisms are still functioning. Furthermore, there is a lack of consensus in the medical community over the issue and it is controversial.

The response to uncertainty is that it is certain that once consciousness ceases, life ceases. It is important for society to understand this to enable substantial benefit. Breathing is not what makes one human—it is the ability to make choice, freedom. Consciousness allows one to fall in love, understand hardship, and thrive in society. Once consciousness is lost, humanness is lost, and death is defined (Pojman 101). To the argument of fetus’, life’s beginning is an entirely different discussion from the state of death. For it would take away from the argument to focus on whether humans are alive during birth; this essay is entirely discussing the end, not the beginning. Although, a newborn under the state of comatose would be considered dead, for it would be a miscarriage—tragic, a fact of life. Conclusively, the uncertainty should not prevent society from adopting a beneficial definition for the betterment of society.