Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24845371›Full record

ArticleThe Linacre quarterly2013

Persons and evidence for death: A reply to Bulzacchelli.

Stephen Napier

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Linacre quarterly, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Stephen NapierAssistant Professor of Philosophy, Villanova University, Villanova, PA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article is a reply to Bulzacchelli's argument via two routes. First, I argue that Bulzacchelli has not clarified what he means by the two key terms in his argument: person and reduction. Second, and more importantly, I argue that Bulzacchelli's argument involves a contradiction. He seems to think that determining death on the basis of physiological evidence (i.e. the cessation of organismic functioning) is reductionistic. But he also endorses arguments against whole brain death (WBD) and those arguments maintain that because organ systems function (with external support) in the setting of WBD, the person still exists. But to say that the person still exists simply in virtue of organ systems still functioning is the very reduction Bulzacchelli intimates is a problem.

Indexed as

Brain deathdualismevidencepersonsShewmon's Challenge

Identifiers

PMID24845371
PMCPMC6081764

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.