Statements in which the resource exists as a subject.
PredicateObject
rdf:type
lifeskim:mentions
pubmed:issue
2
pubmed:dateCreated
1993-7-16
pubmed:abstractText
Professor Cole is correct in his conclusion that the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) protocol does not violate requirements of "irreversibility" in criteria of death, but wrong about the reasons. "Irreversible" in this context is best understood not as an ontological or epistemic term, but as an ethical one. Understood that way, the patient declared dead under the protocol is "irreversibly" so, even though resuscitation by medical means is still possible. Nonetheless, the protocol revives difficult questions about our concept of death.
pubmed:commentsCorrections
pubmed:keyword
pubmed:language
eng
pubmed:journal
pubmed:citationSubset
E
pubmed:status
MEDLINE
pubmed:month
Jun
pubmed:issn
1054-6863
pubmed:author
pubmed:issnType
Print
pubmed:volume
3
pubmed:owner
NLM
pubmed:authorsComplete
Y
pubmed:pagination
157-65
pubmed:dateRevised
2007-11-15
pubmed:meshHeading
pubmed:year
1993
pubmed:articleTitle
The irreversibility of death: reply to Cole.
pubmed:affiliation
Center for Ethics and Humanities in the Life Sciences, Michigan State University.
pubmed:publicationType
Journal Article, Comment, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't