Death and reductionism: a reply to John F Catherwood

Journal of Medical Ethics 18 (1):40-42 (1992)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This reply to John F Catherwood's criticism of brain-related criteria for death argues that brainstem criteria are neither reductionist nor do they presuppose a materialist theory of mind. Furthermore, it is argued that brain-related criteria are compatible with the majority of religious views concerning death

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

    This entry is not archived by us. If you are the author and have permission from the publisher, we recommend that you archive it. Many publishers automatically grant permission to authors to archive pre-prints. By uploading a copy of your work, you will enable us to better index it, making it easier to find.

    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 106,756

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Brain Death and Brainstem Death: Philosophical and Ethical Considerations.David Lamb - 1987 - Royal Institute of Philosophy Lecture Series 22:231-249.
Cases Abusing Brain Death Definition in Organ Procurement in China.Norbert W. Paul, Kirk C. Allison & Huige Li - 2022 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 31 (3):379-385.
Death in Denmark.M. Evans - 1990 - Journal of Medical Ethics 16 (4):191-194.
Death, Brain Death, and Ethics.David Lamb - 1985 - State University of New York Press.
Brain death and personal existence: A reply to green and Wikler.Howard Brody - 1983 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 8 (2):187-196.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-09-13

Downloads
49 (#502,120)

6 months
8 (#539,100)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?