Tom Woodcock suggests that we may avoid the "unanswerable semantic
question" of whether those with irreversible loss of brain stem function
are dead by changing the law to permit relatives to consent to the removal
of their organs without a diagnosis of death. A problem with this
solution is that whilst any patient is alive we are obliged to act in his
or her best interest. Removing someone's heart is not compatible with
this obligation. There would need to be many other legal changes
(including changes to the law on homicide, presumably) in order to
facilitate Woodcock's idea.
Rapid Response:
Should the brain stem dead be deemed dead?
Tom Woodcock suggests that we may avoid the "unanswerable semantic
question" of whether those with irreversible loss of brain stem function
are dead by changing the law to permit relatives to consent to the removal
of their organs without a diagnosis of death. A problem with this
solution is that whilst any patient is alive we are obliged to act in his
or her best interest. Removing someone's heart is not compatible with
this obligation. There would need to be many other legal changes
(including changes to the law on homicide, presumably) in order to
facilitate Woodcock's idea.
Competing interests: No competing interests