Brain Death and the Formation of Moral Conscience

In this article, we provide an update to Catholic ethicists and clinicians about the current status of Catholic teaching and practice regarding brain death. We aim to challenge the notion that the question has been definitively settled, despite the widespread application of this concept in medical practice including at Catholic facilities. We first summarize some of the notable arguments for and against brain death in Catholic thought as well as the available magisterial teachings on this topic. Although Catholic bishops, theologians, and ethicists have generally signaled at least tentative approval of the neurological criteria for the determination of death, we contend that no definitive magisterial teaching on brain death currently exists; therefore, Catholics are not currently bound to uphold any position on these criteria. In the second part of the article, we describe how Catholics, particularly Catholic medical practitioners, must presently inform their consciences on this issue while awaiting a more definitive magisterial resolution. Summary: Some prominent Catholic theologians and physicians have argued against the validity of brain death; however, most Catholic ethicists and physicians accept the validity of brain death as true human death. In this paper, we argue that there is no definitive magisterial teaching on brain death, meaning that Catholics are not bound to uphold any position on brain death. Catholics in general, but especially Catholic medical practitioners, should inform their consciences on this intra-Catholic debate on brain death while awaiting more definitive magisterial teaching.

Teoria i praktyka etymologiczna Samuela Bogumiła Lindego na tle jego komparatystyki językoznawczej

Linde’s theory and practice of etymology must not be evaluated solely through the lens of modern linguistics, but also from the point of view of late 19th century language (especially Slavic language) studies. Against the general background of late 18th/early 19th century linguistics, his theory of etymology may be granted tentative approval, even though it contains many mistakes and nonsensical conclusions. Linde compiled the views of many of his predecessors (such as de Brosses, de Gébelin, Adelung, Ihre, Wachter and Dobrovský), but also attempted to modify some of their thoughts and add his own. It is not true (as stated in Zwoliński 1981) that no connection exists between the etymological theories of Dobrovský and Linde. The Polish lexicographer did indeed partially utilise the Czech’s work. Such approval cannot, however, be extended to Linde’s etymological practices as regards comparing Polish and Polish-Slavic lexical material: even though 65% (i.e. 547) of etymological fields contain correctly compiled vocabulary, mistakes occur in 35% (i.e. 292) of them. That Linde’s etymology-deriving principles were ineffective is evidenced by the fact that each of these 292 etymological fields should – based on the state of knowledge in the late 19th/early 20th century – be split into from 2 to 19 etymological fields. On the other hand, his etymological lists that cite words from many Indo-European languages, such as Polish and other Slavic languages, Latin, Greek, German and Baltic languages, and Sanskrit, should be viewed with some approval. Most of the comparisons found in Linde’s etymological treatise, which contains about 1,300 entries, bear similar marks of plausibility. The possibility of Bopp, Rask and Grimm being familiar with the inquiries of the Polish lexicographer and amateur linguist cannot be excluded. In the 19th century, Linde’s etymological principles influenced the so-called inspired linguists, including J. Kamiński, J. Lelewel, A. Mickiewicz and C.K. Norwid.