 |
 |

Controversies About Brain Death
 |
 |
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
 |
 |
To the Editor: I believe that in his commentary on the JAMA Classics article on brain death, Dr Rosenberg1 erred in approvingly commenting on Crick's book The Astonishing Hypothesis.2 Rosenberg summarized the book's point as "there is no separate mind from the brain, the mind is the brain. Cartesian logic of a separate mind and brain is an archaic philosophical concept displaced by current functional magnetic resonance imaging, DBS [deep brain stimulation] studies, years of meticulous clinical-neuropathologic studies, and experimental neurophysiological animal studies that have proven that consciousness and mind are embedded into specific neuroanatomical arousal and behavioral circuits."
Cartesian dualism—one of multiple mind-brain dualistic hypotheses—is an interactionist hypothesis that is not only consistent with the studies Rosenberg cites. It predicts an embedded relationship between mind and brain insofar as Cartesian dualistic interactionism posits a (causal) change in the (material) brain for each and every change in the (immaterial) mind.3 . . . [Full Text of this Article]
Avak Albert Howsepian, MD, PhD
avak.howsepian@va.gov University of California, San Francisco Fresno Medical Education Program Fresno
CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati Twitter
What's this?
RELATED ARTICLE
Consciousness, Coma, and Brain Death—2009
Roger N. Rosenberg
JAMA. 2009;301(11):1172-1174.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
RELATED LETTERS
Controversies About Brain Death
Franklin G. Miller and Robert D. Truog
JAMA. 2009;302(4):380-381.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Controversies About Brain Death
Thomas E. Finucane
JAMA. 2009;302(4):381.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Controversies About Brain Death—Reply
Roger N. Rosenberg
JAMA. 2009;302(4):381-382.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|