The article recently published in this journal by Dr B A Rix, a member of the Danish Council of Ethics (DCE), was heavily criticised by Dr David Lamb and Mr Christopher Pallis in subsequent commentaries. The editorial column by Professor Raanan Gillon also criticised the position put forward by Rix. In this article I contend that the definition of death put forward by Pallis and Lamb suffers certain philosophical shortcomings, that the position put forward by Rix deserves fuller consideration, and that Rix is not to be dismissed easily.
CITATION STYLE
Catherwood, J. F. (1992). Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are “dead”? Journal of Medical Ethics, 18(1), 34–39. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.18.1.34
Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.