The article revisits whether 'brain death' adequately marks the end of a human life for the purpose of organ procurement. By engaging Christopher Tollefsen’s critique, it weighs organismic integration versus brain‑based criteria and the ethical legitimacy of current harvesting practices.
— If brain death or the dead‑donor rule is reinterpreted, organ donation law, clinical consent, and public confidence in transplantation could shift nationwide.
Michael J. New
2025.10.13
86% relevant
The headline explicitly questions what counts as death in the context of the dead‑donor rule and suggests there may be no clean option, aligning with concerns that brain‑death criteria and the rule’s coherence are under pressure.
Joseph M. Vukov
2025.10.10
86% relevant
The article directly engages the dead‑donor rule and the adequacy of brain‑death criteria, responding to Christopher Tollefsen and suggesting current definitions may be ethically or conceptually insufficient—precisely the concern that modern practice may not align with a clear, defensible line for death.
Xavier Symons
2025.10.09
100% relevant
The author’s response to Tollefsen explicitly assesses whether brain death satisfies the dead donor rule and what definition of death should govern organ donation.