Question 1

Under the Uniform Determination of Death Act, death can be determined by&#10;A) The irreversible cessation of the animating or vital principle of the body&#10;B) Either the irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or the irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brainstem&#10;C) Either the irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or the irreversible cessation of consciousness&#10;D) Only the irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions

Accepted Answer

The Uniform Determination of Death Act defines death as the irreversible cessation of either circulatory and respiratory functions or all functions of the entire brain, including the brainstem. This means that a person can be declared dead if there is no blood flow or breathing, or if there is no activity in the brain. Option A suggests an outdated view of death as the "vital principle" and Option C involves the subjective determination of consciousness, which may not be reliable. Option D only considers circulatory and respiratory functions and does not account for brain death.

Question 2

The 1981 President's Commission defined death as&#10;A) the permanent cessation of the integrated functioning of the organism as a whole&#10;B) departure of the animating or vital principle&#10;C) irreversible loss of personhood&#10;D) irreversible loss of psychophysical integration

Accepted Answer

The 1981 President's Commission defined death as "the permanent cessation of the integrated functioning of the organism as a whole." This definition emphasizes the importance of all bodily functions ceasing permanently, rather than simply the loss of one specific function like brain activity or heartbeat.

Question 3

According to D. Alan Shewmon, brain death is not death, because&#10;A) The brain is not necessary for the a human organism to be integrated as a whole&#10;B) A high degree of somatic integration may remain in a brain dead body&#10;C) Artificially sustained brain-dead pregnant women are still alive&#10;D) All of the above

Accepted Answer

D. Alan Shewmon argues that brain death is not death because the brain is not necessary for the human organism to be integrated as a whole, a high degree of somatic integration may remain in a brain dead body, and artificially sustained brain-dead pregnant women are still alive. All three reasons support the idea that brain death does not equate to death of the whole organism.

Question 4

The 2008 President's Council on Bioethics did which of the following:&#10;A) Rejected total brain failure as a criterion for determining&#10;B) Accepted total brain failure as a criterion for determining death&#10;C) Accepted the irreversible loss of consciousness as a criterion for determining death&#10;D) Rejected any neurological criterion for determining death

Accepted Answer

The 2008 President's Council on Bioethics accepted total brain failure as a criterion for determining death, aligning with the neurological standard for declaring death.

Question 5

Lizza thinks that the &#34;decapitation gambit&#34; shows that&#10;A) Defining human death is not a strictly biological matter&#10;B) Total brain failure is an acceptable criterion for determining human death&#10;C) Human death can be defined as the irreversible loss of the psychophysical integration of the human being&#10;D) All of the above

Accepted Answer

The "decapitation gambit" argument suggests that defining human death involves considerations beyond mere biology (A), acknowledges total brain failure as a criterion for death (B), and emphasizes the loss of psychophysical integration as a definition of death (C). Thus, all options are aspects of the argument.

Question 6

Where does Lizza think one would continue to exist, if one's head with its consciousness were successfully transplanted to another body and one's original decapitated body were artificially sustained?&#10;A) In both the transplanted head and the artificially sustained, decapitated body&#10;B) In the artificially sustained, decapitated body&#10;C) In the transplanted head&#10;D) In neither the transplanted head nor the artificially sustained, decapitated body

Accepted Answer

Lizza argues that one's consciousness and sense of self would continue to exist in the transplanted head since it contains one's brain and thus the physical basis for consciousness. The artificially sustained, decapitated body, on the other hand, would not contain the brain and would only be kept alive through external support, so it would not contain one's consciousness or sense of self.

Question 7

What is the &#34;decapitation gambit&#34; in support of the claim that brain death is death? How strong is this argument? Does it show that brain death is death? Why or why not?

Accepted Answer

The answer of What is the &#34;decapitation gambit&#34; in support...

Question 8

Lizza argues that defining death for human beings is not a strictly biological matter but involves philosophical and ethical considerations that go beyond biology. Do you agree? Why or why not?

Accepted Answer

The answer of Lizza argues that defining death for human...

Deck 2: Defining Death in a Technological World