Introduction
From a biological point of view, death is considered a natural fact of the termination of life due to the exhaustion of the body’s vital resources. Previously, biological death was declared after respiratory arrest. With the development of intensive care technologies that allow maintaining human life after the absence of breathing and loss of consciousness, discussions about the nature of death have taken on a new meaning.
Discussion
The crucial issue of the dispute was the definition of universal criteria that allow asserting the occurrence of death. Proponents of the whole-brain standard believe that a person can be considered dead if his brain has ceased to function indefinitely. Proponents of the theory of personality argue that death is the irrevocable loss of personality and consciousness and the inability to gain new experiences (Lamb, 2020). Conceptual differences in approaches do not mean that it is impossible to find a single standard. For example, Brody (as cited in Lamb, 2020) suggested that death be viewed as a process rather than a phenomenon. This approach allows considering that organisms at a certain moment do not belong either to life to death in full.
Conclusion
Discussions about the nature of death, although they have a biological basis, are considered a social phenomenon that requires rational reflection and comprehension. For instance, Heidegger refuses to understand death as a metaphysical or biological moment of transition from one state to another, considering death as a determining factor of human existence itself (as cited in Lamb, 2020). The philosophical approach ultimately seeks to answer the ethical questions that lie in the plane of the social sciences. When should doctors stop treatment? When is it possible to perform an organ transplant from a dead donor?
References
Lamb, D. (2020). Death, brain death and ethics. Routledge.