Postmodern personhood: a matter of consciousness.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

17 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The concept of person is integral to bioethical discourse because persons are the proper subject of the moral domain. Nevertheless, the concept of person has played no role in the prevailing formulation of human death because of a purported lack of consensus concerning the essential attributes of a person. Beginning with John Locke's fundamental proposition that person is a 'forensic term', I argue that in Western society we do have a consensus on at least one necessary condition for personhood, and that is the capacity for conscious experience. When we consider the whole brain formulation of death, and the most prominent defense of it by the President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research, we can readily identify the flaws that grow out of the failure to define human death as the permanent loss of the capacity for conscious experience. Most fundamental among these flaws is a definition of human death that reduces persons to the capacity of the brain to regulate purely physiological functioning. Such a formulation would, in theory, apply to any member of the animal kingdom. I suggest that an appropriate concept of death should capture what it is about a particular living being that is so essential to it that the permanent loss of that thing constitutes death. What is essential to being a human being is living the life of a person, which derives from the capacity for conscious experience.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)206-216
Number of pages11
JournalBioethics
Volume11
Issue number3-4
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 1997
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Personhood
Consciousness
consciousness
human being
death
Consensus
brain
Behavioral Research
Brain Death
behavioral research
experience
Person
Biomedical Research
Medicine
president
animal
medicine
Brain
discourse
lack

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health(social science)
  • Philosophy
  • Health Policy

Cite this

Postmodern personhood : a matter of consciousness. / Rich, Ben A.

In: Bioethics, Vol. 11, No. 3-4, 01.01.1997, p. 206-216.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Rich, Ben A. / Postmodern personhood : a matter of consciousness. In: Bioethics. 1997 ; Vol. 11, No. 3-4. pp. 206-216.
@article{c547f9bd754945058a3632da01382a5e,
title = "Postmodern personhood: a matter of consciousness.",
abstract = "The concept of person is integral to bioethical discourse because persons are the proper subject of the moral domain. Nevertheless, the concept of person has played no role in the prevailing formulation of human death because of a purported lack of consensus concerning the essential attributes of a person. Beginning with John Locke's fundamental proposition that person is a 'forensic term', I argue that in Western society we do have a consensus on at least one necessary condition for personhood, and that is the capacity for conscious experience. When we consider the whole brain formulation of death, and the most prominent defense of it by the President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research, we can readily identify the flaws that grow out of the failure to define human death as the permanent loss of the capacity for conscious experience. Most fundamental among these flaws is a definition of human death that reduces persons to the capacity of the brain to regulate purely physiological functioning. Such a formulation would, in theory, apply to any member of the animal kingdom. I suggest that an appropriate concept of death should capture what it is about a particular living being that is so essential to it that the permanent loss of that thing constitutes death. What is essential to being a human being is living the life of a person, which derives from the capacity for conscious experience.",
author = "Rich, {Ben A}",
year = "1997",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/1467-8519.00059",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "11",
pages = "206--216",
journal = "Bioethics",
issn = "0269-9702",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "3-4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Postmodern personhood

T2 - a matter of consciousness.

AU - Rich, Ben A

PY - 1997/1/1

Y1 - 1997/1/1

N2 - The concept of person is integral to bioethical discourse because persons are the proper subject of the moral domain. Nevertheless, the concept of person has played no role in the prevailing formulation of human death because of a purported lack of consensus concerning the essential attributes of a person. Beginning with John Locke's fundamental proposition that person is a 'forensic term', I argue that in Western society we do have a consensus on at least one necessary condition for personhood, and that is the capacity for conscious experience. When we consider the whole brain formulation of death, and the most prominent defense of it by the President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research, we can readily identify the flaws that grow out of the failure to define human death as the permanent loss of the capacity for conscious experience. Most fundamental among these flaws is a definition of human death that reduces persons to the capacity of the brain to regulate purely physiological functioning. Such a formulation would, in theory, apply to any member of the animal kingdom. I suggest that an appropriate concept of death should capture what it is about a particular living being that is so essential to it that the permanent loss of that thing constitutes death. What is essential to being a human being is living the life of a person, which derives from the capacity for conscious experience.

AB - The concept of person is integral to bioethical discourse because persons are the proper subject of the moral domain. Nevertheless, the concept of person has played no role in the prevailing formulation of human death because of a purported lack of consensus concerning the essential attributes of a person. Beginning with John Locke's fundamental proposition that person is a 'forensic term', I argue that in Western society we do have a consensus on at least one necessary condition for personhood, and that is the capacity for conscious experience. When we consider the whole brain formulation of death, and the most prominent defense of it by the President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research, we can readily identify the flaws that grow out of the failure to define human death as the permanent loss of the capacity for conscious experience. Most fundamental among these flaws is a definition of human death that reduces persons to the capacity of the brain to regulate purely physiological functioning. Such a formulation would, in theory, apply to any member of the animal kingdom. I suggest that an appropriate concept of death should capture what it is about a particular living being that is so essential to it that the permanent loss of that thing constitutes death. What is essential to being a human being is living the life of a person, which derives from the capacity for conscious experience.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85044704863&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85044704863&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/1467-8519.00059

DO - 10.1111/1467-8519.00059

M3 - Article

C2 - 11654774

AN - SCOPUS:0346573042

VL - 11

SP - 206

EP - 216

JO - Bioethics

JF - Bioethics

SN - 0269-9702

IS - 3-4

ER -