Definition of death, organ donation and interruption of treatment in Islam

1996 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. 964-965 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. M. Hassaballah
2019 ◽  
Vol 86 (4) ◽  
pp. 359-365 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margaret Somerville

If, in jurisdictions with legalized euthanasia, obtaining organs for transplant from euthanized people is allowed, must their organs be taken only after death or should euthanasia be allowed to be performed by removal of vital organs? Asked another way, if “Donation after Death” is practiced, why not “Death by Donation?” The article addresses two questions. First, “What issues does connecting euthanasia and organ donation raise?” They include dealing with uncertainty regarding the definition of death, defining what constitutes conscientiously objecting healthcare professionals' involvement in euthanasia, and whether connecting euthanasia and transplantation makes conflicts of interest for healthcare professionals unavoidable. Additional issues raised by death by donation include breach of the “dead-donor rule”; what would constitute informed consent to it; and what impact its acceptance would have on important foundational societal values, especially respect for human dignity and human life. The second question is “Why might some people who agree with euthanasia and even organ donation after death by euthanasia find death by donation ethically unacceptable?” Considerations again include its harmful impact on upholding respect for human dignity and human life and that the “wisdom of repugnance” could be informing these people's reaction. It is concluded that in order to avoid serious breaches of ethics, organ transplantation and euthanasia should not be linked in any way.


We have new answers to how the brain works and tools which can now monitor and manipulate brain function. Rapid advances in neuroscience raise critical questions with which society must grapple. What new balances must be struck between diagnosis and prediction, and invasive and noninvasive interventions? Are new criteria needed for the clinical definition of death in cases where individuals are eligible for organ donation? How will new mobile and wearable technologies affect the future of growing children and aging adults? To what extent is society responsible for protecting populations at risk from environmental neurotoxins? As data from emerging technologies converge and are made available on public databases, what frameworks and policies will maximize benefits while ensuring privacy of health information? And how can people and communities with different values and perspectives be maximally engaged in these important questions? Neuroethics: Anticipating the Future is written by scholars from diverse disciplines—neurology and neuroscience, ethics and law, public health, sociology, and philosophy. With its forward-looking insights and considerations for the future, the book examines the most pressing current ethical issues.


1987 ◽  
Vol 13 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 233-248 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald E. Cranford ◽  
David Randolph Smith

For the past two decades, the medical profession and society have debated the definition of death. Some reasonable consensus has been reached on this issue, in theory and in practice. In the last few years, however, a far more important debate has been evolving — the definition of human personhood. Human personhood has been discussed extensively in the past with respect to the abortion question and other issues concerning the beginning of life. More recently, however, the definition of personhood has been raised with respect to termination of treatment decisions at the end of life and, in particular, on the appropriate care of patients in a persistent vegetative state.Our major premise is that consciousness is the most critical moral, legal, and constitutional standard, not for human life itself, but for human personhood. There is nothing highly original in our approach to this particular issue; others have advanced similar arguments in recent years.


2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (5) ◽  
pp. 436-446 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pamela Durepos ◽  
Tamara Sussman ◽  
Jenny Ploeg ◽  
Noori Akhtar-Danesh ◽  
Harveer Punia ◽  
...  

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to clarify the concept of death preparedness for family caregivers in dementia. Conceptualization was required to support the assessment, promotion, and operationalization (ie, measurement) of death preparedness through palliative care interventions such as advance care planning. Methods: Rodgers evolutionary method of concept analysis was selected to guide this study because of the dynamic nature of death preparedness influenced by context, setting, and time. A comprehensive literature search was conducted. Authors performed constant comparative analysis to identify and interpret surrogate/related concepts, attributes, antecedents, and consequences of death preparedness. Results: Most importantly attributes included (1) knowing and recognizing the symptoms of decline in dementia and what dying looks like; (2) understanding emotions and grief responses; (3) accessing and appraising supports needed to manage and care for dying; (4) organizing affairs and completing tasks in advance; (5) accepting that losses are inevitable and imminent; (6) reflecting on caregiving and finding meaning, “a silver-lining”; and (7) closing, reconciling, and renewing relationship bonds and completing the family member’s life. Discussion: This study contributed a full definition of death preparedness in dementia. Findings aligned with/expanded upon Hebert et al Theoretical Framework of Preparedness for End-of-Life. The use of problem- and emotion-based coping strategies by caregivers with support from health-care providers to promote feelings of death preparedness (including self-efficacy and control) and minimize uncertainty was the implication of this study. Development of a holistic preparedness instrument is underway.


2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 229-236 ◽  
Author(s):  
James M. West

Anesthesiologists have clearly established their place in the history of medical ethics. Our involvement goes back to 1966 when Henri Beecher published his landmark paper on research and informed consent. Participation in the ethics of transplantation is no less important than our previous work. Organ transplant has been life saving for many but also has given rise to many misunderstandings not just from the public but also among our own colleagues. These include methods of allocation and donation, the role that affluence may play in receiving an organ, the definition of death and donation after circulatory death. As perioperative physicians and important members of the transplant team, anesthesiologists are expected to participate in all aspects of care including ethical judgments. This article discusses some of the issues that seem to cause the most confusion and angst for those of us involved in both liver transplantation and in the procurement of organs. It will discuss the definition of death, donation after circulatory death, the anesthesiologists’ role on the selection committee, living donor liver transplantation, and transplantation of patients with alcohol-related liver disease.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document