When does life end? Consensus and controversy in defining death.

IF 1.6 Q2 ETHICS
Piotr Grzegorz Nowak
{"title":"When does life end? Consensus and controversy in defining death.","authors":"Piotr Grzegorz Nowak","doi":"10.1007/s40592-025-00262-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>After more than fifty years of debate on the definition of death, there remains no consensus among bioethicists. This article identifies the conflicting interests represented by various groups within the bioethics community as the primary cause of this stalemate. It argues that the impasse can be overcome if bioethicists recognize these conflicting interests as the fundamental reason for their disagreements, rather than viewing the dispute as primarily concerning the scientifically adequate concept of death. This article proposes a strategy on how to reach a consensus. The core idea in this regard is that the definition of death, in a socially important sense, needs to protect the interests of individual members of society.</p>","PeriodicalId":43628,"journal":{"name":"Monash Bioethics Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Monash Bioethics Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-025-00262-1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

After more than fifty years of debate on the definition of death, there remains no consensus among bioethicists. This article identifies the conflicting interests represented by various groups within the bioethics community as the primary cause of this stalemate. It argues that the impasse can be overcome if bioethicists recognize these conflicting interests as the fundamental reason for their disagreements, rather than viewing the dispute as primarily concerning the scientifically adequate concept of death. This article proposes a strategy on how to reach a consensus. The core idea in this regard is that the definition of death, in a socially important sense, needs to protect the interests of individual members of society.

生命何时结束?定义死亡的共识与争议。
在对死亡的定义进行了50多年的争论之后,生物伦理学家们仍然没有达成共识。这篇文章确定了生物伦理学社区内不同群体所代表的利益冲突是造成这种僵局的主要原因。它认为,如果生物伦理学家认识到这些相互冲突的利益是他们分歧的根本原因,而不是将争论主要视为关于科学上适当的死亡概念,那么僵局是可以克服的。本文就如何达成共识提出了一个策略。这方面的核心思想是,死亡的定义,在一个重要的社会意义上,需要保护社会个体成员的利益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
6.20%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: Monash Bioethics Review provides comprehensive coverage of traditional topics and emerging issues in bioethics. The Journal is especially concerned with empirically-informed philosophical bioethical analysis with policy relevance. Monash Bioethics Review also regularly publishes empirical studies providing explicit ethical analysis and/or with significant ethical or policy implications. Produced by the Monash University Centre for Human Bioethics since 1981 (originally as Bioethics News), Monash Bioethics Review is the oldest peer reviewed bioethics journal based in Australia–and one of the oldest bioethics journals in the world. An international forum for empirically-informed philosophical bioethical analysis with policy relevance. Includes empirical studies providing explicit ethical analysis and/or with significant ethical or policy implications. One of the oldest bioethics journals, produced by a world-leading bioethics centre. Publishes papers up to 13,000 words in length. Unique New Feature: All Articles Open for Commentary
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信