liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Deadly Pluralism? Why Death-Concept, Death-Definition, Death-Criterion and Death-Test Pluralism Should Be Allowed, Even Though It Creates Some Problems
Linköping University, Department of Medicine and Health Sciences, Health and Society. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
2009 (English)In: BIOETHICS, ISSN 0269-9702, Vol. 23, no 8, 450-459 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Death concept, death definition, death criterion and death test pluralism has been described by some as a problematic approach. Others have claimed it to be a promising way forward within modern pluralistic societies. This article describes the New Jersey Death Definition Law and the Japanese Transplantation Law. Both of these laws allow for more than one death concept within a single legal system. The article discusses a philosophical basis for these laws starting from John Rawls understanding of comprehensive doctrines, reasonable pluralism and overlapping consensus. It argues for the view that a certain legal pluralism in areas of disputed metaphysical, philosophical and/or religious questions should be allowed, as long as the disputed questions concern the individual and the resulting policy, law or acts based on the policy/law, do not harm the lives of other individuals to an intolerable extent. However, while this death concept, death definition, death criterion and death test pluralism solves some problems, it creates others.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2009. Vol. 23, no 8, 450-459 p.
Keyword [en]
death, pluralism, Rawls, New Jersey, Japan, metaphysics
National Category
Philosophy
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-20616DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2008.00669.xOAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-20616DiVA: diva2:235562
Note
This is the author’s version of the following article: Kristin Zeiler, Deadly Pluralism? Why Death-Concept, Death-Definition, Death-Criterion and Death-Test Pluralism Should Be Allowed, Even Though It Creates Some Problems, 2009, BIOETHICS, (23), 8, 450-459. which has been published in final form at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2008.00669.x Copyright: Blackwell Publishing Ltd http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ Available from: 2009-09-16 Created: 2009-09-15 Last updated: 2009-09-28

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(333 kB)435 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 333 kBChecksum SHA-512
6d8e3b9ca4c3e577a06354b7228dc90626cdaefe42f3b10145c5ad1eaed5aa5d00147bc841e7e2e104e1e8608346e4dbb39562efd8f73ab98b9fe0f172a8763a
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

Publisher's full text

Authority records BETA

Zeiler, Kristin

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Zeiler, Kristin
By organisation
Health and SocietyFaculty of Arts and Sciences
Philosophy

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 435 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 101 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf