ArticleThe Linacre quarterly2023
The Moral Illicitness of Relying Solely on Neurological Criteria for the Determination of Death: A Catholic Response to "Brain Death".
Article in The Linacre quarterly, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- How Did Denise Darvall Die? A Contribution to the History of the First Heart Transplant.The Linacre quarterly · 2025Article
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
This paper presents the biological, philosophical, and theological arguments against "brain death" or death determined strictly through neurological criteria. It is rooted in a realistic, Thomistic metaphysical and anthropological view of the human person and the objective reality of death. Part I of the paper reviews the medical evidence that the bodies of those declared brain death are alive and makes clear that the bodies of "brain dead" patients are not biologically analogous to severed body parts. Part II presents the philosophical and theological argument that it is impossible to be a live human being and not a person. Since then those declared brain dead are somatically alive, they are live human persons with the right to life and cannot be subject to the extraction of vital, unpaired organs, since this would violate the dead donor rule. Part III reviews why the Magisterium has not unconditionally approved the determination of death through neurological criteria, and why it would be within the competence of the Magisterium to preclude medical professionals from determining death strictly through neurological criteria. The paper argues that there should be a ban on all vital, unpaired organ donation from "brain dead" donors.
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.