著者

澤田 愛子

出版者

日本医学哲学・倫理学会

雑誌

医学哲学 医学倫理 (ISSN:02896427)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.8, pp.35-51, 1990

---

Today's marvellous medical advances confront us with a verysevere problem, namely the criteria for establishing death, such as brain death. Technical advances in medicine now permit maintenance of cardiac and respiratory functions in human beings for a few days after massive or total destruction of the brain. This fact has presented us with delicate and difficult problems, especially in relation to organ transplantation. Namely, when a human being's brain functions are lost irreversibly and yet his cardiac and respiratory functions are maintained by an artificial life-support system, does he live or not? Up to now the signs of life have been seen as vital signs (body temperature, pulse, respiratory rate and blood pressure etc.). But if these signs are maintained by artificial methods, are they truly vital signs? Physicians say that even if a life-support system works, cardiac function will stop in a few days or a few weeks. But this short term is quite important for organ transplantation. At that time each organ except the brain is maintained through artificial circulation of blood. Therefore physicians who agree to organ transplantation stress that brain death is the true death of human beings, for the purpose of legal removal of organs. But many ordinary people have complex feelings about it. They don't easily admit a family member's brain death because of their warm pink bodies. Here we have a severe problem. In this article I have focussed on these problems and have tried to think of the redefinition of death in modern society from different perspectives, that is, philosophically, psychologically, medically, culturally and legally. And finally in conclusion my thoughts are presented.