THE INTERSECTION OF PHILOSOPHY AND MEDICINE IN THE BRAIN DEATH DEBATE (II): THE PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENT AGAINST THE EQUIVALENCE OF BRAIN DEATH AND HUMAN DEATH

The debate on brain death encompasses complex philosophical, ethical, and scientific dimensions. This article delves into philosophical arguments questioning the equivalence of brain death with human death, highlighting the work of philosophers like Hans Jonas, Josef Seifert, Robert Spaemann, and Peter Singer. It critiques the assumptions underlying brain death definitions, such as "brainstem death," "whole brain death," and "higher brain death," and explores the philosophical and ethical implications of these perspectives. Through exploring these arguments, the article emphasizes the inadequacy of purely medical perspectives in addressing the concept of death, advocating for an interdisciplinary approach. The discourse illustrates the stalemate in philosophical debates over brain death, where differing assumptions lead to conflicting conclusions, reflecting a broader cultural shift towards relativism in understanding human nature and truth.