传统的心肺死亡标准是唯一有效的人类死亡标准

IF 1.1 0 RELIGION
P. Volek
{"title":"传统的心肺死亡标准是唯一有效的人类死亡标准","authors":"P. Volek","doi":"10.12775/SETF.2021.011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In recent time the critique of the whole brain death as the criterion of human death, that was introduced in 1968, has been growing. The paper aims to show in systematically that there are good reasons based on empirical findings combined with Thomistic Christian anthropology to accept the traditional cardiopulmonary criterion as the criterion of human death. This will be shown through a systematic critique of other criteria of death: whole brain death, higher brain death, brain stem death, and controlled cardiac/circulatory death. The traditional cardiopulmonary criterion of death provides the opportunity to maintain the dead donor rule for organ transplantation. This also affirms the respect for human life required by the ethics of the sanctity of human life. The paper further provides a justification of dead donor rule. The paper proposes 35 minutes period after cardiac arrest to declare the patient dead, since at that time there is no possibility to autoresuscitate the heart.","PeriodicalId":41706,"journal":{"name":"Scientia et Fides","volume":"172 1","pages":"283"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Traditional Cardiopulmonary Criterion of Death is the Only Valid Criterion of Human Death\",\"authors\":\"P. Volek\",\"doi\":\"10.12775/SETF.2021.011\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In recent time the critique of the whole brain death as the criterion of human death, that was introduced in 1968, has been growing. The paper aims to show in systematically that there are good reasons based on empirical findings combined with Thomistic Christian anthropology to accept the traditional cardiopulmonary criterion as the criterion of human death. This will be shown through a systematic critique of other criteria of death: whole brain death, higher brain death, brain stem death, and controlled cardiac/circulatory death. The traditional cardiopulmonary criterion of death provides the opportunity to maintain the dead donor rule for organ transplantation. This also affirms the respect for human life required by the ethics of the sanctity of human life. The paper further provides a justification of dead donor rule. The paper proposes 35 minutes period after cardiac arrest to declare the patient dead, since at that time there is no possibility to autoresuscitate the heart.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41706,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scientia et Fides\",\"volume\":\"172 1\",\"pages\":\"283\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scientia et Fides\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.12775/SETF.2021.011\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"RELIGION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scientia et Fides","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12775/SETF.2021.011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

1968年提出的将全脑死亡作为人类死亡标准的批评,近年来越来越多。本文旨在从实证研究结果出发,结合托马斯主义基督教人类学,系统地论证将传统的心肺标准作为人类死亡的标准是有充分理由的。这将通过对其他死亡标准的系统批判来证明:全脑死亡、高级脑死亡、脑干死亡和控制心脏/循环死亡。传统的心肺死亡标准为器官移植提供了维持死亡供体规则的机会。这也肯定了尊重人类生命神圣性伦理所要求的人类生命。本文进一步对死亡捐赠人规则进行了论证。本文建议在心脏骤停后的35分钟内宣布患者死亡,因为此时心脏不可能自动复苏。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Traditional Cardiopulmonary Criterion of Death is the Only Valid Criterion of Human Death
In recent time the critique of the whole brain death as the criterion of human death, that was introduced in 1968, has been growing. The paper aims to show in systematically that there are good reasons based on empirical findings combined with Thomistic Christian anthropology to accept the traditional cardiopulmonary criterion as the criterion of human death. This will be shown through a systematic critique of other criteria of death: whole brain death, higher brain death, brain stem death, and controlled cardiac/circulatory death. The traditional cardiopulmonary criterion of death provides the opportunity to maintain the dead donor rule for organ transplantation. This also affirms the respect for human life required by the ethics of the sanctity of human life. The paper further provides a justification of dead donor rule. The paper proposes 35 minutes period after cardiac arrest to declare the patient dead, since at that time there is no possibility to autoresuscitate the heart.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Scientia et Fides
Scientia et Fides RELIGION-
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
10.00%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: "Scientia et Fides" (SetF) is an open access online journal published twice a year. It is promoted by the Faculty of Theology of Nicolaus Copernicus University, in Torun, in collaboration with the Group of Research “Science, Reason and Faith” (CRYF), at the University of Navarra. The journal is characterised by the interdisciplinary approach, multiplicity of research perspectives and broad reflection on methodology as well as analysis of the latest publications on the relationship between science and faith. The tasks of the journal are perfectly expressed by the motto "Veritas in omnibus quaerenda est" ("to seek the truth in all things") from "De revolutionibus" by Nicolaus Copernicus. SetF aims to present rigorous research works regarding different aspects of the relationship between science and religion. For this reason, SetF articles are not confined to the methodology of a single discipline and may cover a wide range of topics, provided that the interdisciplinary dialogue between science and religion is undertaken. The journal accepts articles written in English, Spanish, Polish, French, Italian and German which will be evaluated by a peer-review process.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信