We’ve talked about Brain Death before with Robert (Bob) Troug and guest-host Liz Dzeng, and in many ways today’s podcast is a follow up to that episode (apologies Bob for mispronouncing your last name on today’s podcast!).
Why does this issue keep coming up? Why is it unresolved? Today we put these questions to Winston Chiong, a neurologist and bioethicist, and Sean Aas, a philosopher and bioethicist. We talk about many reasons and ways forward on this podcast, including:
The ways in which advancing technology continually forces us to re-evaluate what it means to be dead - from the ability of cells/organs to revive, to a future in which organs can be grown, to uploading our consciousness to an AI. (I briefly mention the Bobiverse series by Denise Taylor - a science fiction series about an uploaded consciousness that confronts the reader with a re-evaluation of what it means to be human, or deserving of moral standing).
The moral questions at stake vs the biologic questions (and links between them)
The pressures the organ donation placers on this issue, and questioning if this is the dominant consideration (as Winston notes, organ donation was not central to the Jahi McMath story)
What we argue about when we argue about death - the title of a great recent paper from Sean - which argues that “we must define death in moralized terms, as the loss of a significant sort of moral standing,” - noting that those why are “dead” have something to gain - the ability to donate their organs to others.
Winston’s paper on the “fuzziness” around all definitions of brain death, titled, Brain Death without Definitions.
As we joke about at the start - talking with philosophers and bioethicists, you almost always get a response along the lines of, “well that’s a good question, but let’s examine a deeper more fundamental question.” Today is no different. And the process of identifying the right questions to ask is absolutely the best place to start.
Eventually, of course, everything must cease.