ArticleThe Linacre quarterly2015
A Thomistic defense of whole-brain death.
Article in The Linacre quarterly, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Brain as a Whole? Neuroendocrine Functions and Death by Neurological Criteria.The Linacre quarterly · 2025Article
- The Catholic Medical Association Should Not Officially Oppose The Utilization of Neurological Criteria to Determine Death-A Response to Joseph Eble.The Linacre quarterly · 2023Article
- (Re)-Emerging Challenges in Christian Bioethics: Leading Voices in Christian Bioethics.Christian bioethics · 2022Article
- Double Effect Donation.The Linacre quarterly · 2021Article
- Diagnosing death: the "fuzzy area" between life and decomposition.Theoretical medicine and bioethics · 2021Article
- Brain Death and the Formation of Moral Conscience.The Linacre quarterly · 2019Article
- Organ Donation and Declaration of Death: Combined Neurologic and Cardiopulmonary Standards.The Linacre quarterly · 2019Article
- Death, unity, and the brain.Theoretical medicine and bioethics · 2019Article
- Pope John Paul II and the neurological standard for the determination of death: A critical analysis of his address to the Transplantation Society.The Linacre quarterly · 2017Article
- Letter to the Editor.The Linacre quarterly · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Michel Accad critiques the currently accepted whole-brain criterion for determining the death of a human being from a Thomistic metaphysical perspective and, in so doing, raises objections to a particular argument defending the whole-brain criterion by Patrick Lee and Germain Grisez. In this paper, I will respond to Accad's critique of the whole-brain criterion and defend its continued validity as a criterion for determining when a human being's death has occurred in accord with Thomistic metaphysical principles. I will, however, join Accad in criticizing Lee and Grisez's proposed defense of the whole-brain criterion as potentially leading to erroneous conclusions regarding the determination of human death. Lay summary: Catholic physicians and bioethicists currently debate the legally accepted clinical standard for determining when a human being has died-known as the "wholebrain criterion"-which has also been morally affirmed by the Magisterium. This paper responds to physician Michel Accad's critique of the whole-brain criterion based upon St. Thomas Aquinas's metaphysical account of human nature as a union of a rational soul and a material body. I defend the whole-brain criterion from the same Thomistic philosophical perspective, while agreeing with Accad's objection to an alternative Thomistic defense of whole-brain death by philosophers Patrick Lee and Germain Grisez.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.