Introduction
The articles reviewed touch upon the problem of dead/dying brain and the ethical question of organ transplantation from brain dead patients. The definition of death is thoroughly connected to the phenomenon of the loss of consciousness. The topic of consciousness is also connected to the ethical issues regarding the transplantation from “dead-brain” patients. The impossibility of medical workers to assess the presence/absence of consciousness inside the patients makes the declaration of death seem doubtful.
Main body
In the article “Is there Science behind the Near-Death Experience: Does Human Consciousness Survives After Death?” by Pranab Kumar Bhattacharya, the main focus is put on the problem of a near-death experience (NDE). As it is mentioned in the article, a near-death experience or NDE refers to a wide range of diverse experiences that took place during the threat of possible death: “sensations of detachment from the body; floating in space-time and seeing his/her corpus, feelings of levitation; extreme fear of dying; the presence of a bright light, seeing relatives who have already died” (Bhattacharya 157). It is not a secret that the number of NDE has drastically increased due to several medical science breakthroughs and inventions in the spheres of cardiac resuscitation (CPR).
The nature of such experiences remains to be unclear. The crucial challenge of finding an explanation is that scientific methods refute transcendental phenomena and rely on the senses of touch, smell, seeing, and hearing. As it is known, consciousness is a subjective perceiving state that does not have a physical representation. One possible explanation of NDE is Dying Brain Theory. This theory states that the experience in question might be caused by the lethal physiological changes in the brain (Bhattacharya 157). In short, famous DNE hallucinations of seeing light and flying through dark tunnels might be caused by the process of cerebral anoxia, which results in the death of brain cells. Therefore, spiritual voyages can be the function of the brain to realize that the organism is going to stop existing. Furthermore, the same elements of all NDE experiences can be explained by the fact that every brain’s cell dies in the same way as all others.
Another theory that explains NDE is the Memory of Birth Theory developed by Otto Rank. This theory suggests that NDE might be caused by birth trauma: “anxiety-producing experiences of separation reactivate the separation from the mother at birth” (Bhattacharya 160). However, Bhattacharya mentions that Carl Becker refutes this theory since the infant’s brain is too undeveloped to store memories of birth (160). At the same time, NDE might have something to do with the temporal lobe, which is in charge of transferring sensory input into memories. It is quite compelling, however, that the frequency of NDE cases is 5% – 48% in adults, while children have a significantly higher number – 85% in children (Bhattacharya 156). It might be explained by the process of active development of the medial temporal lobe among children. All the cases of NDE raise the question of the presence or absence of consciousness during NDE and the Brain Death.
Karakatsanis and Tsanakas’ article “A Critique on the Concept of Brain Death” is devoted to the concept of brain death, which is based on unclear and incoherent theory. The article throws some light on the criteria that should be used to declare a patient as dead. Like the previous study, the article touches on the problem of the content of consciousness or awareness in brain dead patients. Karakatsanis and Tsanakas state that a medical or another criterion for the diagnosis of the loss of consciousness does not exist at all (Karakatsanis and Tsanakas). The reason for that is the fact that consciousness is a subjective experience. Therefore, it is not realistic to test patients for the performed content of consciousness. In most cases, clinical workers deal with reduced wakefulness or coma. Even though wakefulness can be permanently lost, the preformed content of consciousness may still reside in the cerebral hemispheres.
As can be seen, there are certain limits in the clinical assessment of consciousness and internal awareness inside a patient. The permanent loss of consciousness cannot be assessed and proved by medical attestations. Therefore, the diagnosis of death is based on unproved data and vague criteria. The hypothesis of the loss of the content of consciousness is unproved in both the loss of the whole brain functioning and the functioning of only the brainstem. As a result, the accepted declaration of “brain-based death” or “brain death” might be incompatible with the role consciousness plays in the declaration of death.
“The Public’s Right to Accurate and Transparent Information about Brain Death and Organ Transplantation” also states that the determination of death is a quite complicated question, especially regarding “brain-dead” donors, whose body is still alive. The article argues that using brain-dead patients’ organs without explaining to the public the nuances of the procedure is morally flawed (Nair-Collins). At the same time, brain-dead donors are estimated to be the primary source of vital organs that can save thousands of lives.
Conclusion
As can be seen, the problem of consciousness is the central one in terms of defining the criterion for the death declaration. This topic is especially relevant to the ethical issues connected to “dead-brain” patients’ death declaration and the further transplantation of organs from their dead bodies. The presence of NDE makes the problem of consciousness even more controversial.
Works Cited
Bhattacharya, Pranab Kumar. “Is there science behind the near death experience: Does human consciousness survives after death?” Ann Trop Med Public Health, (6), 2013, pp.151-65.
Nair-Collins, Michael. “The Public’s Right to Accurate and Transparent Information about Brain Death and Organ Transplantation”. Hastings Center Report, vol. 48, 2018, pp. S43-S45. Wiley.
Karakatsanis, Konstantine G., and John N. Tsanakas. “A Critique on the Concept of Brain Death”. Issues in Law and Medicine, 18(2), p.127-142.