Good, bad, fascist, whatever, doesn’t matter, to a disagreement on nomenclature. A biologically functioning body with a working ATP cycle, isn’t a corpse. Ethics and morality are irrelevant.
“Is brain death death” and “is a brain-dead person a corpse” are two different questions. The answer to the first is yes, the second is no. You can be dead, but until your body starts decomposing it’s not a corpse.
That’s simply not correct. A corpse would have more rights to autonomy. You can’t force a corpse to donate life saving organs, but you can make a woman.
A brain dead body isn’t a person, but that doesn’t make it a corpse. All the biological functions continue. The ATP cycle continues. The body takes in nutrients and uses them to maintain their normal biological functions. Corpses don’t do that.
Actually we do have a pretty solid biological definition for life.
That which takes in nutrients, processes them to support itself, and expells waste products. Anything that dose those things is life. That’s why viruses aren’t considered alive. They don’t do those things.
The person part you’re right, is more philosophical. I only mention it because it seems to better fit what people are calling “dead” in this case.
The conversation is about human death. The question is at what point is a human being considered dead. If cellular function is brought into it, then a rotting corpse is teeming with bacterial life.
You are right that biological functions of the human body can continue well past the point that someone would be broadly considered dead. I just think that a lack of brain function is a good classification of when to consider that someone has died.
The conversation is about what makes a “corpse”.
If the brain dead body still performs the majority of its biological functions, that’s not really a corpse.
Disagree. They made a corpse deliver a baby against the family’s wishes. The people in charge are pure evil
That’s not physically possable.
I think you have a different idea what corpse is.
Disagree. Disgusting fascist take but ok Steve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adriana_Smith_pregnancy_case
How does this have upvotes? Calling someone fascist for thinking a living body isn’t a corpse? Man this place is such a shit hole sometimes.
I understand the fascist comment earlier, this time not sure how you define it?
Good, bad, fascist, whatever, doesn’t matter, to a disagreement on nomenclature. A biologically functioning body with a working ATP cycle, isn’t a corpse. Ethics and morality are irrelevant.
brain dead is considered dead.
no matter if cells still have atp.
it’s a corpse.
there’s no biological definition for human death. besides a vague “is it curable”
death used to be cardiac death, but we figured out how to save people who had cardiac death, so we move the goalpost to brain death.
It’s literally not a corpse, it’s a brain-dead person / body.
You started this debate with Steve by using sensationalizing language, and I’m here to provide definitions and lay this discussion to rest:
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/brain-dead?q=Braindead
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/corpse?q=Corpse
We can all agree that what they’ve done is horrible, there’s no need to distort language to make a point.
A corpse can not carry a pregnancy, a brain-dead body apparently can if assisted.
I’ll see myself out.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4206160/
“Is brain death death” and “is a brain-dead person a corpse” are two different questions. The answer to the first is yes, the second is no. You can be dead, but until your body starts decomposing it’s not a corpse.
That’s simply not correct. A corpse would have more rights to autonomy. You can’t force a corpse to donate life saving organs, but you can make a woman.
If brain dead is dead bacteria are dead.
A brain dead body isn’t a person, but that doesn’t make it a corpse. All the biological functions continue. The ATP cycle continues. The body takes in nutrients and uses them to maintain their normal biological functions. Corpses don’t do that.
that isn’t biology, it’s philosophy.
we don’t have a good definition of What’s alive either
Actually we do have a pretty solid biological definition for life.
That which takes in nutrients, processes them to support itself, and expells waste products. Anything that dose those things is life. That’s why viruses aren’t considered alive. They don’t do those things.
The person part you’re right, is more philosophical. I only mention it because it seems to better fit what people are calling “dead” in this case.
OK, spores aren’t alive. dissecated watebears aren’t alive
the highschool definition isnt used by biologists because it’s oversimplified and doesn’t hold up to the diversity of life.
Brain death is death. He’s dead https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_death
If brain death is dead, single cell organisms are dead.
We’re not single called organisms
Of course not. But the definition of death you gave, doesn’t distinguish between forms of life.
The conversation is about human death. The question is at what point is a human being considered dead. If cellular function is brought into it, then a rotting corpse is teeming with bacterial life.
You are right that biological functions of the human body can continue well past the point that someone would be broadly considered dead. I just think that a lack of brain function is a good classification of when to consider that someone has died.
The conversation is about what makes a “corpse”.
If the brain dead body still performs the majority of its biological functions, that’s not really a corpse.
Yeah the current definition pretty much says a lot of dead stuff together is making one living being