NOT APPLICABLE
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Legal death asks, âWhatâs in a name?â Before defining death, we must understand what life is and, after understanding life, we must ponder why we are defining death. Essentially, death is the time-point when the body, as a whole, is ready to begin its irreversible decomposition and decay so that the elements forming the body can return back to the nature. So, when death is bodyâs readiness, as a whole, to irreversibly decompose and decay, where does organ harvesting, retrieval and transplantation fit in this continuum? Whichever way medical science tries to define it, legal death for medical scenarios may not be death in actuality considering that herein legal death may have been only designed, defined, propagated and accepted so that (a) the whole heart and other organs can be considered ready to be harvested with body medically becoming ready for âabandonmentâ as soon as the artificial life support is withdrawn and (b) the medically futile draining of kinâs/payersâ/systemâs resources can be contained whenever the artificial life support systems essentially start evolving into artificially supporting non-salvageable-dying-bodies. Summarily, confusing usage of word âdeathâ during legal death for medical scenarios may have to be removed from our medicine because the answer to the question âWhatâs in a name?â is âA name is a name is a nameâ.
Legal death[1-2] asks, âWhatâs in a name?â Can William Shakespeare be rolling in his grave considering that his words are hereby being used to question the definition of death? Sometimes, some are legally âpronounced deadâ when their brains are declared dead per current medical sciencesâ best estimates even though their bodies along with their organs may survive till much later.[3-5] And sometimes, some are legally âpronounced deadâ whenever their bodies are first discovered to be dead even though long time periods since the actual times of death may have elapsed before these dead bodies got discovered.[6-7] Before defining death, we must understand what life is and, after understanding life, we must ponder why we are defining death. While defining death, we can only focus on death of body because we may never understand death of mind or soul. The existential questions are: Does death define the time-point when body, which can not function on its own, can be âabandonedâ? And what happens to this âabandonedâ body?  Essentially, death is the time-point when the body, as a whole, is ready to begin its irreversible decomposition and decay so that the elements forming the body can return back to the nature,[8-9] in various forms of matter and energy which we know of and various forms of dark matter and dark energy[10] which we are yet to know.  Hereafter, the final set of questions arises. When death is bodyâs readiness, as a whole, to irreversibly decompose and decay, where does organ harvesting, retrieval and transplantation fit in this continuum? Can we continue to go by the current definition of legal death where organ harvesting, retrieval and transplantation can be considered returning back of organs as whole to fellow human beings considering that they all are constituents of nature as well? Are we still confused by the current definition of legal death because organs harvested and retrieved are transplanted thus escaping irreversible decomposition and decaying while organ-less body is not allowed to irreversibly decompose and decay until after organ harvesting? When no organs are to be harvested, does legal death need to be defined so as to potentially âpreponeâ the controllable time-point when whole body can be âabandonedâ to decompose and decay irreversibly whereby preventing potential âpostponementâ of this ambiguous time-point after artificial life support measures seem futile and draining of resources appears purposeless? Considering that the confusion surrounding legal death will remain unabated,[11] should we consider renaming legal death for medical scenarios as âWhole-Heart-Harvestable Permanent-Abandonment-Ready Dying-Human-Body Sans-Artificial-Support Current-Best-Estimateâ?  Regarding whether the aforementioned and renamed pathophysiological state (âdeathâ) has been attained, the medical criteria as well as the socioeconomic reasons can be decided after consensus within the medical fraternity as well as the democratic society.[12] However, if word âdeathâ can not be removed from the current definition of legal death for medical scenarios like (a) brain âdeathâ before automatic withdrawal of futile artificial life support measures wherein patients being brain-âdeadâ potentially precluding the need for their familiesâ/surrogatesâ/guardiansâ consent[13] prior to withdrawal of futile artificial life support measures and (b) donation after cardiac/circulatory âdeathâ for harvesting organs in non-brain-âdeadâ patients, there will always be confusion regarding when the body is dead in medical scenarios.[14-15] Counterintuitively, if (a) non-statutory âDead Donor Ruleâ[16] is mandatory ethical prerequisite prior to certain vital organsâ harvesting and (b) social norms and aesthetics warrant to keep society âmisinformedâ[14-15] regarding organ donation being primarily limited to âdeadâ donors and thus never becoming the cause of donorsâ âdeathâ,[17] we may continue to keep word âdeathâ for namesake during legal death for medical scenarios. However, society may have to consider inciting mass awareness about legal deathâs truest rechristening as âWhole-Heart-Harvestable Permanent-Abandonment-Ready Dying-Human-Body Sans-Artificial-Support Current-Best-Estimateâ because death in natural sense, as the time-point when irreversible decomposition and decaying of whole body begins, actually and only happens after the artificial life support has been withdrawn irrespective of whether organs had or had not been harvested before the withdrawal of artificial life support. Moreover, death of human body in natural sense may be delayed for variable periods of time after the artificial life support has been withdrawn unless whole heart had been harvested. There is no historical example when a harvested heart has been transplanted back (re-donated/replanted/auto-planted)[18] in the donating body and thus human body can not be considered living without whole heart in-situ (natural or artificial)[19] unless futuristically the cryogenically frozen brain of the heartless body can be envisaged to be able to receive a heart for its heartless frozen body or can be envisaged to be transplanted into a brainless body[20] having a beating heart.  Essentially, we should call a spade a spade and be done with it. In this case, whichever way medical science tries to define it, legal death for medical scenarios may not be death in actuality considering that herein legal death may have been only designed, defined, propagated and accepted so that (a) the whole heart and other organs can be considered ready to be harvested with body medically becoming ready for âabandonmentâ as soon as the artificial life support is withdrawn and (b) the medically futile draining of kinâs/payersâ/systemâs resources can be contained whenever the artificial life support systems essentially start evolving into artificially supporting âWhole-Heart-Harvestable Permanent-Abandonment-Ready Dying-Human-Body Sans-Artificial-Support Current-Best-Estimateâ. Therefore, aforementioned confusing usage of word âdeathâ during legal death for medical scenarios may have to be removed from our medicine.  Interestingly, we may also look into future to ponder if the cryogenically frozen bodies[21] may not be considered dead too because they are not allowed to irreversibly decompose and decay hoping that they may somehow and someday be able to get revived. Herein too, it may be better that the cryogenically frozen bodies may be called âFrozen-For-Now Hoping-In-Future Ready-For-Revival Whenever-Technology-Allows Viably-Thawing-Frozenâ unless the socioeconomics sustaining the frozen bodies do not drain out before the evolution of capable futuristic technology potentially leading to disheartened pulling the plug on âFrozen-For-Now Hoping-In-Future Ready-For-Revival Whenever-Technology-Allows Viably-Thawing-Frozenâ culminating into their deaths in natural sense, as time-points when irreversible decomposition and decaying of their frozen bodies can be allowed to begin.  Similar socioeconomic confusion currently exists and arises when the resources are spent by one party[22] for artificially supporting life while consent for withdrawal of life support is requested from another party.[23] It is assumed that there will be socioeconomic conflicts of interests if the same party is paying for resources to sustain artificial life support as well as providing consent to withdraw artificial life support. However, these socioeconomic conflicts of interest may never go away despite separating the two aforementioned parties because the parties paying for the artificial life support may create guidelines,[24] recommendations and position statements which can be potentially perceived as âcoercionsâ[25] by the parties consenting to withdrawal of artificial life support when they are being asked to understand, to the best of currently available knowledge, the futility of artificial life support so that they may be able to relinquish their potential feelings of guilt while deciding for artificial life supportâs withdrawal.   Summarily, until we are able to confirm that afterlife of human beings exists and that these afterlife spirits (afterlife minds and afterlife souls) have certain personal expectations about when and how their last bodies should have been âabandonedâ[26], human death in actuality is just a human body becoming ready to be permanently âabandonedâ without the fellow human beings feeling âguiltâ about the âabandonmentâ wherein ensuing irreversible decomposition and decaying of body is returning âashes to ashes, dust to dustâ. Thereafter, it may futuristically become feasible and  appear better too that the futuristic examples of patients waiting for whole heart transplants may be able to sincere pray for timely availability of âWhole-Heart-Harvestable Permanent-Abandonment-Ready Dying-Human-Body Sans-Artificial-Support Current-Best-Estimateâ rather than inadvertently and potentially hoping for timely legal âdeathâ of some unknown bodies because the answer to the original question âWhatâs in a name?â is âA name is a name is a nameâ.
Legal death law and legal definition [Internet]. Jackson (MS): US Legal, Inc.; c1997-2016 [cited 2019 Feb 2]. Available from: https://definitions.uslegal.com/l/legal-death/ Legally dead law and legal definition [Internet]. Jackson (MS): US Legal, Inc.; c1997-2016 [cited 2019 Feb 2]. Available from: https://definitions.uslegal.com/l/legally-dead/ Enyart B, Williams F. List of brain dead patients whoâve recovered [Internet]. Arvada (CO): Real Science Radio; [updated 2017 Jun 9; cited 2019 Feb 2]. Available from: https://kgov.com/brain-dead-patients-who-have-recovered Rettner R. Life after brain death: Is the body still âaliveâ [Internet]? Bath (UK): Purch; c2019 [2014 Jan 3; cited 2019 Feb 2]. Available from: https://www.livescience.com/42301-brain-death-body-alive.html Whitlock J, Fogoros RN. How brain death is diagnosed: Death by neurologic criteria [Internet]. New York (NY): Dotdash; c2019 [updated 2018 Dec 31; cited 2019 Feb 2]. Available from: https://www.verywellhealth.com/brain-death-what-does-it-mean-3157217 Dake D. Determining time of death [Internet]. Cuba (MO): Death Investigation Academy / By Design Media; c2018 [updated 2015 Feb 15; cited 2019 Feb 2]. Available from: https://coronertalk.com/28 Quora Contributor. At what point is a person legally considered dead? Jersey City (NJ): Forbes Media LLC.; c2019 [updated 2018 Jul 20; cited 2019 Feb 2]. Available from: https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2018/07/20/at-what-point-is-a-person-legally-considered-dead/ Featherstone AW. Decomposition and decay [Internet]. Forres (UK): Trees for Life; c2018 [cited 2019 Feb 2]. Available from: https://treesforlife.org.uk/forest/forest-ecology/decomposition-and-decay/ Colagrossi M. Why the world needs death to prosper [Internet]. New York (NY): Big Think; c2007-2018 [updated 2018 Sep 24; cited 2019 Feb 2]. Available from: https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/necrobiome-death-drives-life Dark Energy, Dark Matter [Internet]. Washington (DC): National Aeronautics and Space Administration; c2019 [cited 2019 Feb 2]. Available from: https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy Truog RD, Berlinger N, Zacharias RL, Solomon MZ. Brain Death at Fifty: Exploring Consensus, Controversy, and Contexts. Hastings Cent Rep 2018;48:S2-S5. Russell JA, Epstein LG, Greer DM, Kirschen M, Rubin MA, Lewis A; Brain Death Working Group. Brain death, the determination of brain death, and member guidance for brain death accommodation requests: AAN position statement. Neurology 2019 Jan 2. pii: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000006750. Muramoto O. Informed consent for the diagnosis of brain death: a conceptual argument. Philos Ethics Humanit Med 2016;11:8. Tennessee donor services. Understanding brain death [Internet]. Rochester (NY): Finger Lakes Donor Recovery Network; c2019 [cited 2019 Feb 2]. Available from: www.donorrecovery.org/learn/understanding-brain-death/ Rubin R. What âbrain-deadâ means [Internet]. Atlanta (GA): WebMD LLC.; c2005-2019 [updated 2014 Jan 3; cited 2019 Feb 2]. Available from: https://www.webmd.com/brain/news/20140103/brain-dead-faq Sade RM. Brain death, cardiac death, and the dead donor rule. J S C Med Assoc 2011;107:146-9. Nair-Collins M, Green SR, Sutin AR. Abandoning the dead donor rule? A national survey of public views on death and organ donation. J Med Ethics 2015;41:297-302. Birbrair L. FYI: Are organs ever re-donated [Internet]? Harlan (IA): Popular Science; c2019 [updated 2013 Aug 6; cited 2019 Feb 2]. Available from: https://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-08/are-organs-ever-re-donated Albin A. UCLA doctors remove manâs heart, replace it with total artificial heart [Internet]. Los Angeles (CA): UCLA; c2019 [updated 2012 Dec 6; cited 2019 Feb 2]. Available from: http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/man-s-heart-removed-and-replaced-241430 Houser K. Cryogenically frozen brains will be âwoken upâ and transplanted in donor bodies within three years, neurosurgeon claims [Internet]. New York (NY): Futurism; c2019 [updated 2017 Apr 29; cited 2019 Feb 2]. Available from: https://futurism.com/cryogenically-frozen-brains-woken-up-transplanted-donor-bodies-within-three-years-neurosurgeon-claims Hugo K. Humans could be frozen alive and thawed to continue living, says Russian company [Internet]. New York (NY): Newsweek; c2019 [updated 2017 Nov 13; cited 2019 Feb 2]. Available from: https://www.newsweek.com/cryonics-freezing-people-russian-company-709999 Groeneveld EI, Cassel JB, Bausewein C, Csikós Ã, Krajnik M, Ryan K, et al. Funding models in palliative care: Lessons from international experience. Palliat Med 2017;31:296-305. Sedig L. What's the Role of Autonomy in Patient- and Family-Centered Care When Patients and Family Members Don't Agree? AMA J Ethics 2016;18:12-7. Weisz G, Cambrosio A, Keating P, Knaapen L, Schlich T, Tournay VJ. The emergence of clinical practice guidelines. Milbank Q 2007;85:691-727. Blackler L. Ethics Series: Compromised autonomy: When families pressure patients to change their wishes. J Hosp Palliat Nurs [Internet] 2016 [cited 2019 Feb 2];18:284-9. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1097/NJH.0000000000000264 Stewart S. Burial alternatives â 23 ultimate ways to check out [Internet]. London (UK): Lexikin⢠Ltd.; c2016 [cited 2019 Feb 2]. Available from: https://www.lexikin.com/funerals/burial-alternatives/