Death: Moving the Goalposts on Definition?

death, n. Blacbird's writing career.

-- Blacbird's Unabridged Dictionary, 2008 ed.

caw

So death warmed over would be blacbird on vacation in Miami?

(Sorry, Cranky)

I think it further emphasizes the need for having a living will as soon as you're able to sign one.

Now that you mention it, thanks to modern medicine the definition has been moving in the other direction as well, as in people being routinely revived who, had they been in the same state decades ago, would have been declared dead and given up on.
The "declaration of death" can be questionable, as there are cases where someone is revived, either on their own or with medical interention, minutes or even hours after not having a heartbeat or lacking some other sign of life such as breathing. It would depend on the circumstances (so unfortunately I'd have to be conscious at the time to decide, but if I were dying of something like cancer and had clearly been near death anyway, there wouldn't be much sense in trying to revive me), but I'd hesistate to sign something that said "you take my organs the moment I'm [declared] dead."

kuwisdelu said:

I think it further emphasizes the need for having a living will as soon as you're able to sign one.

Click to expand...

You mean on your 18th birthday? I might make that a little younger, such as before one can get a learner's or driver's license (or just move the minimum driving age to 18). Or at least for a minor to get a license, a parent would have to sign/cosign such a statement.

...why didn't they restart the heart in the first baby?

Bartholomew said:

...why didn't they restart the heart in the first baby?

Click to expand...

The heart may have not been the problem. Restarting it may not have continued the infant's life, only serving to prolong the moment of death.

I'm not sure how I feel about this. It tended to make it sound like the "donater" could have been revived. They may not have. Depending on which side of the fence you sit on (your loved one dying or needing to be saved) two very different opinions can be formed. I'm not sure how I would feel in either instance but... I sure do hope I get more than 75 seconds to see if I make it.

Think I'd rather be the President of the United States, than to be responsible for determining life and death distinctions.

tiny terror said:

The heart may have not been the problem. Restarting it may not have continued the infant's life, only serving to prolong the moment of death.

Click to expand...

You stole my thunder!

tiny terror said:

I'm not sure how I feel about this. It tended to make it sound like the "donater" could have been revived. They may not have. Depending on which side of the fence you sit on (your loved one dying or needing to be saved) two very different opinions can be formed. I'm not sure how I would feel in either instance but... I sure do hope I get more than 75 seconds to see if I make it.

Click to expand...

I feel that way too - under such extreme conditions we can only "trust" doctors to make the "correct" judgements, and even with over a decade of medical school, internship and whatnot, they're still only human.

SHBueche said:

Think I'd rather be the President of the United States, than to be responsible for determining life and death distinctions.

Click to expand...

At least a doctor is doing this without (much?) POLITICAL pressure. The President, along with his (her?) other duties, also determines life or death, and probably for more lives than does an emergency room doctor. Not only is he the Commander In Chief and can send people to fight and die in war, he can (as I understand it) save a life just by signing a piece of paper pardoning someone on Death Row. Big example right now: Troy Davis.

I don't understand why "brain death" is no longer the standard. ???

JoNightshade said:

I don't understand why "brain death" is no longer the standard. ???

Click to expand...

I think because the brain was taking too long to die and organs are best taken as fast as possible.


Ben, I really didn't mean to even grab your thinder, let alone steal it

tiny terror said:

I think because the brain was taking too long to die and organs are best taken as fast as possible.

Click to expand...

Hm. If this is the case, then, I think this is the definition we need to go back to. Yes, it's nice to have organs for other people who are dying, but it's also nice not to kill people before they're really dead. I don't think "but they're going to die soon anyway" is a sufficient justification for ending any life, because it's subject to blurring. As in, if someone is going to die anyway, the line we take the organs at gets to be earlier and earlier, until we're saying, "Well, she's 80. She's going to die soon anyway, so let's take her organs for someone younger who has a better chance at life."

Also, I just plain don't like the idea of still having brain function as someone starts cutting me open and taking out all my parts. Yeah, maybe it's not very much function, but nobody really knows, now do they?

JoNightshade said:

I don't understand why "brain death" is no longer the standard. ???

Click to expand...

Because it would disqualify a lot of politicians, lawyers, accountants, bankers . . .

caw

blacbird said:

death, n. Blacbird's writing career.

-- Blacbird's Unabridged Dictionary, 2008 ed. (unpublished)

caw

Click to expand...

I fixed it for you.