Controversies in defining death and organ transplantation

My main objective in applying for a residency at the Brocher Institute (aside from the opportunity to work in a beautiful place and be surrounded by a community of interesting people!), is to expand the scope of my work in three important ways. 

First, the questions raised by the issues surrounding the definition of death and organ procurement are not just technical – they raise the most profound and universal questions concerning “What does it mean to be a living human being?” “Is the value of human life so dependent upon cognitive functions that, when those cognitive functions are gone, we can consider the person to be dead?” and “Are there circumstances where it would be ethically permissible to kill a person in order to obtain organs to save the lives others, and what would safeguards must be in place to make this permissible?” In my current environment, I generally discuss these kinds of questions with other doctors and nurses, and even the non-clinicians I interact with tend to be embedded in the world of healthcare, such that all of my colleagues often have fairly predictable answer to these questions. At the Brocher Institute, I hope to have the opportunity to interact with individuals from a more diverse range of backgrounds than I normally encounter, thereby giving me fresh perspectives on issues that I have been thinking about for many years.

The second way I hope to expand the scope of my work is by having exposure to a greater range of geographical and cultural perspectives. From what I read and see in the news, I know that the issues described above are relevant for many other countries, cultures, and religions. Rarely do I have the opportunity to talk about these ideas and concepts in any depth with those outside of my own community. I would feel so fortunate to be able to have conversations with individuals from backgrounds different from my own – I think it would inspire me to think about some of these issues in new ways that I would not be able to anticipate.

Third, I would like to expand my ability to speak with different audiences, that is, with those who have different levels of scientific knowledge and sophistication, those who may not share fundamental assumptions that I make in my own thinking, or those who espouse world views that may be radically different from my own. I have some experience with speaking to non-academic audiences, and I have created several podcasts that are aimed at a more general audience, but the diversity of participants that the Brocher Institute attracts would be very helpful as I seek to expand my ability to communicate with the public at large.