Is brain dead death?

[Schaps]

I have no difficulty with metaphysics in general but I was trying to follow the original post ( OP) which questions the relationship of brain death to death. The OP specifically refers to brain death as it has been reported in news media recently and not to any alternative metaphysical possibility. I have structured my responses within the context of that definition. As an example of my ability to consider death from alternative perspectives I refer you to my thread which attempts to disprove the existence of death: http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... =4&t=11258

-- Updated March 31st, 2014, 4:13 am to add the following --

"I refer to a comatose person on a ventilator as being in a state of living death because such a person is not really alive or dead. Not really alive because they are completely unresponsive" ..,, not true! Those patients are very responsive to many stimuli including those applied to the cranial nerves and brainstem. It is only the brain dead ( by definition referred to in my citation ) who are not responsive to cranial nerve and brainstem reflexes. The brain dead corpse may continue to respond to spinal reflex tests.

" and not really dead because they are still taking oxygen with a steady pulse" ... And additionally those patients who are not brain dead will not pass the very precise tests of brain death as described previously.

There is no ethical difficulty in caring for a comatose patient receiving mechanical ventilation ( I have done so in innumerable cases). One does however have the responsibility to define the cause and prognosis of the coma so as to advise the patient's family.

[Subatomic God]

I have no difficulty with metaphysics in general but I was trying to follow the original post ( OP) which questions the relationship of brain death to death. The OP specifically refers to brain death as it has been reported in news media recently and not to any alternative metaphysical possibility. I have structured my responses within the context of that definition. As an example of my ability to consider death from alternative perspectives I refer you to my thread which attempts to disprove the existence of death: http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... =4&t=11258

You quickly disregarded my consensus; I guess you could change your mind, in spite of undermining my intentions, which affect my physiology and my psyche, though. I was only trying to help you question your unusual confidence in something nobody in this entire world can grasp under a genuine light, but woe is me! You'd think that a board that is for philosophy wouldn't be so stubborn when it comes to what is "right", what is "wrong", what is "belief" and what "is", but I guess I am "right" to accept that I was "wrong" to have a "belief" in that; for people all have a "belief", and such rivals against what "is" to be "right"; to not deny thereof, one such is "wrong"!

We should return back to you accusing my thinking as "fantasy", rather than, in question, "factual". There's no reason to suggest that when the brain dies (implying brain dead here, just not directly) that there's only neuronal necrosis to blame, and that it's "irreversible" -- maybe not for us by hand, but the human body is self-correcting/self-healing; it does do remarkable things at times, which is enough to consider that perhaps what is "irreversible" is just our "ignorance", so I highly doubt that I am the one caught up in a fantasy, Schaps.

[Sy Borg]

I often wonder, Greta, how many children became atheist, because their prayers were not answered by God. I was raised in the Christian tradition and went to Sunday school every week. However, I was abused and bullied by older boys and blamed God for not protecting me. We were told by our parents and teachers to pray to God and our prayers would be answered, but then they also told us about Santa Claus. How can you trust people like that?

Yes PA, many things were - and are - said to achieve a result rather than for factuality's sake.

[Schaps]

Your fantasy is ->"There's no reason to suggest that when the brain dies (implying brain dead here, just not directly) that there's only neuronal necrosis to blame, and that it's "irreversible"

There are examples of the irreversibility of brain death every day in emergency rooms and other settings. When a person suffers cardiac arrest it is fairly common to obtain return of circulation but if the period wherein there has been no oxygen supplied to the brain exceeds the limits of 5-7 minutes there will be no/zero return of brain function ie., brain death. Techniques such as induced hypothermia are now being introduced in an attempt to maximise the slowed metabolic rate cerebral protecting effect of low body temperature but the neurological recovery from CPR remains dismal.

[Present awareness]

We now have the technology to pump the heart, breath the lungs, filter the blood and keep a body alive with machines, once brain function is lost. The question becomes " to what purpose"? There is a conflict of interest for doctors, as they don't get paid for dead patients. If a body cannot sustain itself, is it the duty of doctors to suspend it's natural conclusion? Some countries allow the family's to make the decision as to whether or not to pull the plug. I've always been of the opinion that it's not the length of ones life, but the quality of ones life, which is important. I've instructed my family members to pull the plug on me, if given the option.

[Subatomic God]

Your fantasy is ->"There's no reason to suggest that when the brain dies (implying brain dead here, just not directly) that there's only neuronal necrosis to blame, and that it's "irreversible"

There are examples of the irreversibility of brain death every day in emergency rooms and other settings. When a person suffers cardiac arrest it is fairly common to obtain return of circulation but if the period wherein there has been no oxygen supplied to the brain exceeds the limits of 5-7 minutes there will be no/zero return of brain function ie., brain death. Techniques such as induced hypothermia are now being introduced in an attempt to maximise the slowed metabolic rate cerebral protecting effect of low body temperature but the neurological recovery from CPR remains dismal.

Then why call it "death", if there's a time period consisted of the brain on "edge" of being disposed by the energy that which gives it "apparent" life to begin with?

[Rederic]

When the heart, respiration & reflexes stop, this is called clinical death. There remains a short window of opportunity where it's possible to resuscitate a person (4-5 minutes, with some exceptions i.e. temperature). After 4 minutes without oxygen the brain becomes damaged to the point of brain death.

It's possible to take a brain dead corpse & attach it to machines thereby giving the appearance of life.

[Schaps]

"When the heart, respiration & reflexes stop, this is called clinical death"... Not true . That is not death.. It may appear to the layman as death obviously but is not and no professional uses the terms "clinical death" it is meaningless. " "There remains a short window of opportunity where it's possible to resuscitate a person (4-5 minutes, with some exceptions i.e. temperature). After 4 minutes without oxygen the brain becomes damaged to the point of brain death"...True

"Then why call it "death"... See above

[Theophane]

It's possible to take a brain dead corpse & attach it to machines thereby giving the appearance of life.

Kind of like what Galvani did with the frog legs by running electric current through them, making them "kick."

(Bioelectricity existed long before Galvani discovered it, of course.)