Dear Sparkles,
Please discuss your definitions of death and/or issues related to Prof. Tacy's visit today. I would like you to start by discussing death as an event vs. a process.
Other prompts from Jillian & Kelsey's presentation:
* When is a person dead and when can we harvest his/her organs?
* Is there a difference between being declared dead and no longer living?
* Is it unethical to take someone off of life-support? If it depends on the situation, explain.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlright today's conversation with Becky Tracy was a pretty enlightening. First of her definition of death as any of the above seemed perfect response for any medical professional to say, because this justifies taking the organs of person for transplant with any of the characteristics of death. Also, I think she made an important statement when it comes to being dead versus no longer living. As she said the body can be maintained artificially with drugs or etc, but is this really living. The answer is of course is no. A person in PVS is no different than a turtle with its head cut off, except for the fact that its someone wife, husband or friend. As human being emotions largely interfere with our ability to make logical decisions and the billions of dollars spent on PVS patients serves as proof. I think an important realization to make with a brain dead patient is that at this point they are nothing but a corpse with a heart beat or a turtle with no head. Granted, it easy for me to say when my loved one isn't lying in a coma, but let record show if I am ever in a brain dead state inject peanut butter into my veins.
ReplyDeleteDeath, as we have studied in class, is inevitable. Death occurs, as Becky Tacy said, to “one hundred percent of human beings,” and therefore, it is logical to arrive at the understanding that fear and worrying are useless. People in secular contexts tend to describe death as a single event during which vital statistics officially have ceased to produce themselves; however, in a more philosophical context, death is to be viewed as a process. The process of death, since the moment of death is the biological definition, occurs when someone has irreversibly ceased to function as a human being. Regressing to the form of life that any “regular” organism can exhibit marks the dying process. Though the heart may be beating and the lungs may be breathing, death has begun to occur. At this point, the person has forfeited involuntarily the ability to converse, to love, to befriend, to think, and more; therefore, how can one argue that they are still participating in the human race? These individuals, nonetheless, deserve dignity and respect to and beyond their biological life’s cessation.
ReplyDeleteHearing Becky Tacy’s firsthand accounts of her experiences in dealing with her patients’ death allowed me to vicariously understand the inevitable nature of death. While death is never fun, it should be embraced and viewed as an opportunity for grieving to occur and for support to be upheld, especially for the family. Hearing her discuss the dignity-considerate methods of notifying family members supported my trust in medical professionals, as if their decision to dedicate their careers to nursing is not enough testaments to their compassion for sacred life.
As alluded to before, one can be dead long before they are declared dead. Death regards the leaving from humanity, and certain biological criteria must be met in order to medically be considered dead. Philosophically, one would have a difficult time justifying that one in vegetative life is actually still human. Taking someone off life support, as Dr. Cate said in the prompt, depends on the situation. Life support is designed for humans who have the capacity to be reversed, because it sustains them and shocks their system back into function. If someone is on life support and has no potential to be reversed into normal existence once again after trying and studying, then life support is usually not a viable option. Becky Tacy alluded to the importance of clarifying your wishes to your loved ones, not only to remove the burden but also to make the decision set in stone. Life support can be sustained at the family’s discretion given the family’s exorbitant financial commitment.
For me, the definition of death is closer to the brain stem-dead dead person than any of the others discussed in the book. Death is an event in one's life that every person will at some point endure. It is no different than a birthday, except death doesn't come once a year (hopefully). If looked at as a process, it is easy to say that everyone is dying just by living, because each second of the death that ticks away is one second less we have left in life. When looking at death as an event, one can look deeper into what it personally means to them and their issues/views on things. In regards to the difference between not living and being dead, I would say that the person that has brain damage that is so severe and irreversible that they will never regain conciousness again is dead, but one that still has brain function but issues with breathing or heartbeat may not be technically dead, but rather "not living."
ReplyDelete“The organism was fully alive before the chain of events began, is fully dead by the end of the chain of events, and is neither during the process.” (Barry, 2007)
ReplyDeleteThis quote from Barry perfectly reflects my view on the "process" of death. I do not believe that dying is an instantaneous event, though it may occur very quickly in some cases. I believe that a technical "death" occurs when all of the physical and mental processes cease to function; however, I would argue that one is not truly living if their higher brain functions are not functioning at any point during this process of dying. At this point, I do believe that it is safe to utilize their organs or take them off of life support if the higher brain function damage is irreconcilable. If someone is not experiencing the true features of humanity, how can we consider them to be truly living? Though their body is not dead, their "personhood" surely is, and what else can they be considered as but an empty, lifeless, tomb?
In this unpredictable world we live in only one thing is certain, and that sadly is death. No matter what we do, death is unavoidable. With that in mind it is peculiar to think that a solid definition of fatality has not been determined. In my opinion, death occurs when higher brain function is permanently lost. According to the higher brain formulation, death occurs when an individual has loss capacities unique to human life. I support this theory because I feel that once people are unable to express themselves in a uniquely human manner, life is lost. It is one’s conscious ability to think, reason, love, remember, etc. that sets man aside from the rest of the animal kingdom. Therefore without these abilities, a human body is nothing more than a living corpse. Furthermore, I view death as a process rather than as an event. When a person starts down the path of irreversible health issues, death has begun. In cases where the heart and lungs are in full function, but the individual is in a permanent state of unconsciousness, death has begun. Although that individual holds onto their biological life, their human life is lost. Due to my view of death as a process, opposed to an event, I believe that it is acceptable to harvest an individual's organs at the point when death begins. If a person has irreversible higher brain function loss, it is in my opinion safe to utilize their organs.
ReplyDeleteI agree with many of the blogs here. Yes, a person is dead when their vital organs cease to function. However, when a person remains in a vegetative state, like Terry Schavo, I believe they are really dead when their ability to think, act, feel emotion - the ability to be themselves is lost - or when their ability to sustain life depends on technology. Their brain is no longer functioning. When there is no reversing their state, and there is nothing more we can do, then using their organs to save other lives would be the right thing to do. It isnt unethical to cut life support after everything that could be done has been done. Life support devices are costly, and it only keeps a deceiving hope alive in their loved ones that a miracle could happen. Therefore, overall I would have to believe death is more a process. Then there is the event of the theological view on death, when the spirit of a person is lifted into the heavens, they are then dead. I do believe in heaven, but maybe God likes to play with us when we have out-of-body experiences. There is no way to prove someone had an out-of-body experience. But how could someone be biologically dead at one point, and then come back alive? Was their spirit ever lifted to begin with? Theological view on death raises so many questions, and its something we as humans cannot prove. Its simply a view on death in which we much believe.
ReplyDeleteOne definition of event is "something that occurs in a certain place during a particular interval of time." Could death then be an event in some cases, such as a terminally ill patient? A terminally ill patient first learns of their illness, and is in shock, then they try to fight it, but realize it will defeat them, then the patient may go into a depressive state. In the end death is a defeat or a realization for the patient. So perhaps, the journey to death for them, could be the event? Or perhaps I am over-thinking!
I view most things from a biological sense. Therefore, when I consider my definition of death, I think that death is confirmed when the circulation of blood in the body seizes completely for the last time. Or, in the case of living beings without blood (such as plants), death involves the point in time in which that being’s internal life system comes to an end. I think that without brain function or people on respirators are alive until all processes shut down in the body and their body seizes to do anything. So I think that death is a process in which each organ system slowly gives away and a person starts the journey to being buried but it is also an event that will be remembered by their loved ones.
ReplyDeleteI feel that all people should have the chance at life and I gues that is why I think that all people are alive until there is absolutely no signs of life. After professor Tacy's talk with us, it gave me a better understanding of how I will encounter death going into the medical field. I really did appreciate her coming in and being so open to talk to us all.
I do agree with Becky Tracy's definition of death. I agree with kelsey in that I use the biological defintion however i like that becky tracy put a limit on how long she wants to be assisted in life. I think that people need to start thinking like that because it is a very real possiblitly that you will end up on a ventilator for some period of time. Death is an event however it is a process for the families in letting go and i believe that is where tha line gets blurred between event and process.
ReplyDeleteProf. Tacy's visit last week was interesting. Death is something we can't avoid and probably should not put off in the back of our heads until it is right in front of us. I liked her thoughts on how she wanted to be treated if she was dying. I think that death is more like a process rather than an event. When people begin to die, organs slowly begin to lose function and shut down. When all of their organs are totally dead then it can be said they died. Also, the dying process for the person and their family begins before or after the person died because the person dying and the family have to comprehend what will or has happened. Coming to terms with death is different for everyone some accept it faster or slower than others.
ReplyDeleteI thought what Prof. Tracy said about how she wanted to be kept alive for a minimum of 3 weeks and if there is no hope or chance of her condition improving then she would want to be taken off life support. I think that kind of decision is very respectable and considers others close to her. I thought the higher brain definition of death was interesting point of view that I myself pondered before I took the class. I feel that I would not want to be kept alive on life support for an extended period of time if there was no little to no chance of improving and just existing without a mind sounds like a frightening existence but obviously I wouldn't be able to understand that if I was already I a situation like that. I think that organs could be removed if the person has no hope of ever getting better because I think of it as I would not be able to benefit from having them if I was in a permanent coma and someone could have the chance of having a more fulfilling life if they received my organs. I urge caution because like our text said this could have the chance for abuse if forced on families that wouldn't want life support pulled. Life support while being very helpful and can save lives we should ask the question when is enough enough. I would say that if someone with little to no survival chance on life support to continue to be on life support for an indefinite time could be seen as unethical because the amount of money and resources used could put people in huge debt, especially in this country with healthcare costs could be seen as wrong because it is putting a family in unnecessary debt. I think that choosing when to take someone off life support is a hard decision because it be hard for a family to say they want what remains of their loved one to biologically die. Talking about death now rather than later can help a family better accept death as a part of life and see it as a positive experience rather than a sad one.
Being human sets us apart from all other organisms. We have a biological existence as well as a non-biological existence, or soul. Our biological existence is our body; it’s merely our shell or biological vehicle. Our non-biological aspect, the soul, is our very existence as a unique person. As a result, the death of a human would have to be a process that contains two events, the death of our biological organism and the death of our non-biological existence. In this regard, the hard decisions with death occur when the non-biological aspect of a human person has ceased to exist (at least on this Earth) but their biological organism has remained alive, often through artificial means like life support.
ReplyDeleteI find the higher-brain approach to death is the most reasonable and appropriate. The whole-brain death formulation goes too far declaring that the entire brain must be irreversibly lost before death can be declared. Parts of our integrated functions can be replaced with artificial means but if the capacity for consciousness has been lost, as in the higher-brain approach, the person’s existence has already permanently been lost. Of all of the traits of persons, I view the higher function of consciousness to be so essential to our very existence that its permanent loss would constitute death. With irreversible loss of the capacity for consciousness, the most significant features of human life are gone.
As organisms we will all eventually die, one hundred percent of the time, in a biological sense. This biological death occurs when an organism has lost the capacity for integrative functions like respiration and circulation. The event of a biological death will automatically cause the death of our Earthly non-biological existence. When this sequence occurs in the reverse order, our biological vehicle can be kept living through biotechnology, almost for an indefinite period of time. It is times like this when the individual’s health-care proxy and/or loved ones should think about the consideration of doing nothing and allowing the biological death to occur.
Sorry this is a little late, but I have had this typed out for a while now and just never remembered to put it up on here. It was really nice to hear one of Dr. Tracy's lectures again. I actually had her for my FYS class freshman year where we did have a couple of discussions about events at the hospital, however this one we had in class was much more in depth and eye opening and I learned a lot about death from a medical point of view in this class. This was especially interesting to me due to my biology background. Due to this background I am drawn to the process side of the argument even thought I understand how it can be interpreted in two different ways. Death is the process of ones body starting to shut down biologically. Organs are starting to fail, the body is losing balance, and function. Death to me is also the process of ones soul leaving the body and preparing to go to heaven. I also like what Kelsey said above how Death is also a process for the family and friends of learning how to cope and adjust to the loss of a loved one. I can see how some can look at death as an event, for example: the assassination of Abe Lincoln is an event of his death in history. However death itself for the person that is dying and those there supporting him or her, is a sad and painful process that both parties have to go through.
ReplyDelete