I was recently interested to see that the medically recognised definition of death is widely recognised and supported as being 'brain stem death' (was decided in case of Airedale NHS Trust v Bland)
yet then is that not a problem for doctors in cases of brain steam death when a patient has lost vegetative functions and is simply living off life support....problem in terms of morality and ethics. As it is simply impossible to ignore factors such as family pressure and the fact that the patient is a human.
This is not something new, afterall there have been many cases where there has been dispute whether such patients should be pulled of life support or allowed to 'live' off life support.
Has this 'brain stem death' diagnosis of death simply been recognised because it makes it perhaps easier for doctors in such cases to go with the option of pulling off life support that patient as they are already 'dead'.
So my question should there be a new diagnosis of death?
perhaps a statute definition because the current diagnosis does not suit everyone such as Orthodox Jews and Muslims.
what??
should death be confirmed when the brain stem is dead or should it be when the heart has stopped beating....because a patient who has lost all vegetative functions, still has a beating heart.
yet is still considered to be 'dead'.
my question is that, is this diagnosos of death only so, because it may be easier to come to a conclusion to take a patient (who has brain stem death) off life support
because say for arguments sake that death was considered when the patients heart stopped beating, then doctors may not have the choice of taking a patient off life support because under this context the patient is not 'dead'
sorry if i'm not making any sense....it's just a little difficult to get my head around this because i can see possitives and negatives on both sides.