Ethical Thinking of Brain Death Legislation

The one hand, to human beings, the progress of contemporary medical science brought unprecedented chance of survival, on the other hand also brought to mankind unexpected dispute the moral and ethical dilemmas. Bioethics was born. The one area of ??brain death as bioethics, was born in the 1960s. In 1968, Harvard Medical School formally proposed the concept of brain death and brain death criteria, causing a wide range of countries around the world debate. Time to rush, time flies, time flies by four decades. Today, brain death standard for many countries to accept, and many countries of brain death legislation. Taiwan, China and Hong Kong have also completed in 1987 and 1996, brain death legislation, brain death legislation has become the trend of the times. However, in China's mainland, brain death legislation difficult. Brain death standard there is a huge controversy, the parties to the dispute disagree, and to each other. Standards for the same death why people's attitudes differ materially from? Brain death what is what? How the relationship between brain death standard with traditional cardiopulmonary death standard? Brain death whether it should legislate? We must eleven clarify these problems, making practical recommendations, to the end of brain death legislation pending state. The main structure of this paper is divided into three sections: the brain death standard overview of brain death standard ethical discussion as well as brain death to defend the ethics legislation. The article first introduces the basic overview of brain death standard, including the brain death standard production, development and legislative status quo, as well as widespread brain death standard dispute. People's attitudes very different standard for the same kind of death, why? Second chapter analyzes and discusses the ethical value orientation of the brain death standard to controversial reasons and the parties to the dispute by the theory of the Engelhardt death standard dispute to find a way out . I believe that the death standard is the reason why there is a dispute, it is because the people living in a multicultural world and follow different ethical morality. In other words, the modern social inclusion of moral community, these moral community, independent of each other and different ethical value orientation. Add a different moral community become moral strangers, resulting in many of the ethical differences. Whether we can prove what ethical values ??through rational authority and priority should be given? Engelhardt said: Because of the limitations of reason, one can not fully demonstrate Which ethical view is the only correct, only by the equal moral talks, the purpose of moral cooperation. The follow Engelhardt theory, brain death standard Yihuo the traditional cardiopulmonary death criteria, are unable to obtain a demonstration of moral authority. The reason why people on death criteria different attitude, because they represent different moral community based on different values. Any deaths standards are supported starting from the default ethical standards, but does not have an ethical standard is the result of rational fully proved. Since reason can not tell people what kind of specific death standard is the only correct, then how death standard dispute resolved? Allow principle came into being. Allow principle involved in the things of others without their consent will be allowed to others, even if the behavior of people think that this behavior is beneficial to others. For death standard dispute, the people have the right to choose death standards according to their own moral values, and no one may interfere. Cardiopulmonary death criteria of brain death standard, people can choose one. In order to better choose the right brain death standard supporters, we have the necessary legislation of brain death. Finally, the author of two angles from bioethics and institutional ethics ethics defense of brain death legislation.