Extended Death Definition: The dangerous shift of the last border

The debate about contradiction and extended definition of death seems to many people like an attack on the last border of human dignity, on the certainty that life cannot simply be redefined as soon as it appears organizationally or medically useful. Precisely because this is about death, dying and organ removal, the mere suspicion is enough that definitionspushed, criteria stretched and processes could be steered in a dangerous direction in order to trigger deep distrust. If you have the feeling that protection can become an access, you don’t react hysterically, but with a healthy instinct for the inviolability of your own body and your last phase of life.

The restlessness about the definition of death

The idea of the definition of death should be expanded, although death should be the point where all uncertainty ends, is particularly worrying. When an extension of the death criteria is discussed, it quickly becomes apparent that no longer alone counts medical clarity, but prepares a system that more cases for theopens up organ removal. However, the boundary between life and death must not become a toy of interests. She must be so sure that no one has to fear being considered available in a state of weakness or serious illness before his life is really over.

Doubts about the brain death diagnosis

The controversial diagnosis of brain death increases this insecurity because many do not experience it as absolutely infallible. Especially when it is described that strange methods are used and at the same time there are technical possibilities for brain current measurement, but these are not used consistently, the suspicion grows that not maximum safety, buta fixed procedure is the focus. This is fatal for such a sensitive field. Where trust is the only solid basis, no feeling of haste, routine or expediency must arise. Once the impression arises that the method comes before certainty, the foundation is damaged.

The fear of shifted criteria

The concern is even worsened when, in addition to the previous death statement, an extended cardiac arrest or similar conditions are discussed as a basis. For many, this does not sound like medical clarity, but like a shift in barriers that are not currently allowed to be postponed. Whoever recapitulates death inevitably opens the door for cases, inwhich the boundary between the severe crisis and the actual end of life becomes blurred. It is precisely this blur that frightens people. It’s not just about terms, but about the question of whether a person is still considered intact or whether they are already being treated as an object of a procedure.

Contradiction solution as a silent compulsion

The objection solution exacerbates this situation because it changes the character of the decision. No longer a clearly explained yes, but the lack of a no. This may be administratively convenient, but it seems to many people who are under pressure to hold the individual responsible to defend themselves against something that is actually only expresslyconsent should happen. Especially with such existential questions, silence is not a convincing substitute for approval. Anyone who does not actively disagree does not automatically agree, especially if the scope of such a decision in everyday life is often suppressed, postponed or simply not understood.

The concern of economic interests

In addition, there is the deep fear that economic interests could be involved in an area that should actually be free from any suspicion of benefit calculation. Organ transplantation is a highly complex and at the same time highly profitable field in which enormous resources are moved. the mere idea that clinics could be under pressure to make death diagnoses more generous orTo interpret processes accordingly, shakes trust. Even if medical rules and ethical requirements exist, the discomfort that where money, time pressure and scarce resources come together, the temptation grows, not only to understand one’s own role as healing, but also as beneficial. This is exactly what shouldn’t happen to such a sensitive area, because even theApparently can suffice to permanently destroy trust.

The distrust of the logic of exploitation

Many people feel that this development is a utilization logic that is not always in line with the protection of the patient. When a person is suddenly no longer considered as a patient in an extreme exceptional situation, but as a possible controlling company, an inner defense develops. The thought that from a dying or severely damaged bodyAn available organ stock could become difficult for many to bear. Not because help for other people would be wrong, but because the suspicion arises that the dignity of the individual dissolves in the shadow of medical benefit. A society that dismisses such concerns as irrational fails to recognize how deep the need for physical integrity and ultimate self-determinationis anchored.

Trust cannot be prescribed

At the end there is the sober realization that trust in this area cannot be created through appeals, not through advertising slogans and not through organizational simplifications. It only arises where rules are crystal-clear, methods are clear and interests are free from any doubt. This is exactly what many critics believe. a solution to objection in connection with aExtensive definition of death therefore not only awakens technical concerns, but above all human concerns. The fear that the last border will be moved is not a feeling of the edge, but the core of the resistance. Because if man can no longer be sure that his death will only begin when he really begins, then something will falter that goes far beyond medicine and justice. It is thatTrust in the inviolability of one’s own life until its real end.