Conclusions

Pierre Mallia*, Nathan Emmerich, Bert Gordijn, Francesca Pistoia

*Corresponding author for this work

    Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapterpeer-review

    Abstract

    Given the advances made in the biomedical sciences across the twentieth century and that continue today one could assume that we are in possession of a proper definition of certain fundamental concepts, such as life and death. However, if anything, these same advances have contributed to a great deal of uncertainty surrounding death and how we ought to understand it. Can a person in a chronic vegetative state be the object of therapeutic obstinacy, when the chances for recovery are extremely poor? Are those born with severe anencephaly sufficiently alive to be declared dead? Are those we assess as brain dead already dead or do they die once we cease providing life support or perhaps a short time afterwards? The law requires that medical doctors record a time of death not least because, as Lamb puts it ‘[i]t is as wrong to treat the living as dead as it is to treat the dead as alive.’

    Original languageEnglish
    Title of host publicationAdvancing Global Bioethics
    PublisherSpringer Science and Business Media B.V.
    Pages215-218
    Number of pages4
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2022

    Publication series

    NameAdvancing Global Bioethics
    Volume17
    ISSN (Print)2212-652X
    ISSN (Electronic)2212-6538

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Conclusions'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this