Brain-based Criteria of Human Death. Study of the Issue
Authors: Norkowski Jacek 
Published: February 2021

In this article I first tried to demonstrate that the theory of so-called braindeath is unsustainable from a scientific point of view. +e data that the medicalprofession provides on this subject clearly contradicts such a theory. It is impossibleto prove, on the basis of the knowledge available to this science thatpeople who are in a state of cerebral death are really dead. +e only thing thatthe doctor can say, without exceeding the limits of the discipline he represents,is that these people have a significant degree of brain damage. +is does notmean, however, that the brain is so damaged that is has ceased to perform all its functions. On the contrary, these patients usually show many symptomsof brain activity. Recognition of these sick people as dead, therefore, contradictsthe principles of the medical art.+e acceptance of the theory of so-called brain death has also given riseto many problems from the legal point of view. Recognition as a living or deceasedperson depends on the criteria for brain death, which vary from countryto country. +e law has therefore become arbitrary in such an important areaas human life and death.+e adoption of the theory of brain death on the basis of such un-robustscientific criteria has undoubtedly become possible only through the acceptanceof certain philosophical assumptions that reduce the human to his or herconsciousness. A permanent loss of consciousness was de facto considered to beevidence of human death. +is position contradicts the achievements of Christianthought in the field of philosophical anthropology, which emphasises theunity of the individual and the importance of his or her bodily aspect. Whatis even more important, however, is the fact that modern man tends to thinkin terms of moral utilitarianism. Many people believe that it is possible to sacrificethe life of a person who is seriously ill and who has no hope of improvement(in this case, a person with cerebral death syndrome) for the benefit of otherpatients. +is attitude explains the passivity of many circles and the failureto discuss such an important issue as the rightness or wrongness of the theoryof so-called brain death. It is not without significance that there is a specifictransplant lobby in individual countries, which puts moral pressure on entiresocieties to accept the removal of organs for transplantation from people whoare in a state of so-called brain death, and suppresses the discussion of moralproblems associated with it.It is necessary for the Catholic Church to develop a clear position on thismatter. +is has not yet happened. +ere is even a surprising lack of consensusamong various the authorities. However, some of the hierarchy of the CatholicChurch have already spoken on this matter. +ese include Cardinal Meissner,Archbishop of Cologne, who clearly rejected the theory of brain death as incompatiblewith the principles of the Church’s teaching8'. Pope John Paul IIalso wrote in the encyclical Evangelium Vitae: “Nor can we remain silent aboutthe existence of other, better camouflaged but no less dangerous forms of euthanasia.We would be dealing with them, for example, if, in order to obtain moreorgans for transplantation, we proceeded to collect these organs from donorsbefore they were declared dead according to objective and adequate criteria.”Although these words do not mention the concept of brain death, theyrefer to it indirectly. +is paper was written in order to draw attention to justsuch a moral problem hidden in the concept of so-called brain death.In conclusion, I would like to give the floor to one of the participantsin the discussion on brain death, Dr Tomoko Abe. She wrote: “It is true thatthe latest developments in science and technology have brought many benefits.At the same time, however, they have brought unprecedented confusion in philosophyand culture to our societies. Due to the destructive tendencies of thepresent day, it is becoming increasingly important to establish social standardsto protect the most vulnerable members of society, such as young children andunconscious patients who cannot defend themselves. We therefore concludethat the current diagnostic criteria for brain death should be abolished andthat a worldwide ban on transplants from people with cerebral death syndromeshould be introduced.”88Dr. Abe is not alone in a desire to overthrow the theory of so-called braindeath and to consider its criteria as non-scientific. +e same is demanded bymany other authors. +e voice of the Catholic Church in this matter is undoubtedlyone of the most important. As the greatest authority in the world in mattersof morality and human rights, it cannot fail to explain the issue of so-calledbrain death in its teaching.