Understanding the Different Arguments for Defining Death: The White Paper vs. Integrative Unity Perspective

How does the White Paper argument for brain death differ from the Integrative Unity argument?

White Paper Argument – The idea that the brain was not the central integrator, but brain death was the indicator of death because what makes an organism alive is its ability to do vital work. (breathing, seeking out mates, food, nutrition)Integrative Unity Argument – a person’s brain is the central “integrator” of the body; without the brain, the entire organism has lost its integrated unity. (it cannot function effectively)

The White Paper argument for brain death is based on the idea that neurological criteria, including the absence of brainstem reflexes and cessation of brain waves, can reliably determine when a person is dead. This argument emphasizes the physical and measurable aspects of the body, and suggests that once the brain has ceased to function, the person cannot be considered alive.

On the other hand, the Integrative Unity argument suggests that death occurs when there is a breakdown in the unified functioning of the body as a whole. Proponents of this argument suggest that death is not simply a matter of physical or biological criteria, but rather involves the loss of the integrated whole that is a person. This argument emphasizes the complex interactions between the different systems of the body, including the nervous system, and highlights the importance of considering the person as a whole rather than simply focusing on individual organs or systems.

Overall, the key difference between these two arguments is that the White Paper argument is focused on the neurological criteria for determining death, while the Integrative Unity argument takes a more holistic view of death as the breakdown of the integrated system that is the person. While both arguments have their strengths and weaknesses, they each provide important insights into the complex nature of death and dying.

More Answers: