I do believe, therefore, that the Harvard criteria for determining brain death are a very important component of making decisions that affect individuals and families at the end of their lives.
When the EEG criteria are applied, for example, it might affect a family's decision to terminate artificial means of keeping a person alive, since there is no hope of revival. It could also affect the decision to donate organs.
One thing I found quite surprising was that the concept of "brain death" only became an official diagnostic category in 1981. The term has been used so often that it feels almost like it has been in existence for far longer than this. Still, I think I find it quite comforting that there are criteria to determine whether a person has indeed completely died, or whether the end of brain function could be recovered after ceasing because of drugs or seizures. One wonders how many misdiagnoses have been made of death over the millennia...
The particular horror of being buried alive has been the subject of many a horror tale. It is comforting that the possibility of this has been significantly diminished with the implementation of elements such as the Harvard criteria.
In conclusion, I find it particularly interesting that the reading gives such particular consideration not only of death in terms of physical functioning, but also in terms of the concept of spirituality. While nobody can truly claim to know what death is or whether anything happens after we die, it is good to know that there are criteria to determine whether death has indeed occurred.
I therefore believe that the Harvard criteria sufficiently cover all the areas necessary to determine the state of physical death. Where voluntary breathing, reflex, sensation, and brain function has ceased, it is indeed logical to assume that a person has died and that there is no hope of the person reviving.
