The introduction of respiratory machines in the 1950s may have saved the lives of many, but it also challenged the notion of death itself. This development endowed “machines” with the power to form a unique ontological creature: a live body with a “dead” brain. While technology may be blamed for complicating things in the first place, it is also called on to solve the resulting quandaries. Indeed, it is not the birth of the “brain-dead” that concerns us most, but rather its association with a web of epistemological and ethical considerations, where technology plays a central role. The brain death debate in Israel introduces highly sophisticated religious thought and authoritative medical expertise. At focus are the religious acceptance and rejection of brain death by a technologically savvy group of rabbis whose religious doctrine––along with a particular form of religious reasoning––is used to support the truth claims made from the scientific community (brain death is death) but challenge the ways in which they are made credible (instrumental rather than clinical). In our case, brain death as “true” death is made religiously viable with the very use of technological apparatus and scientific rhetoric that stand at the heart of the scientific ethos.
“Ad Hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School to Examine the Definition of Brain Death: A Definition of Irreversible Coma.” 1968. Journal of The American Medical Association205 (6): 337–40.
2.
AriesPhilippe. 1981. The Hour of Our Death. New York: Vintage Books.
3.
ArnoldRobertYoungnerStuart. 1993. “The Dead Donor Rule: Should We Stretch It, Bend It, or Abandon It?” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal3 (2) (June): 263–78.
4.
BarilanYechiel Michael. 2014. Jewish Bioethics: Rabbinic Law and Theology in Their Social and Historical Contexts. New York: Cambridge University Press.
5.
BaumanZygmunt. 1992. Mortality, Immortality and Other Life Strategies. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
6.
BeaulieuAnneScharnhorstAndreaWoutersPaul. 2007. “Not Another Case Study: A Middle-range Interrogation of Ethnographic Case Studies in the Exploration of E-Science.” Science, Technology, & Human Values32 (6): 672–92.
7.
BernatJames L.CulverCharles M.GertBernard. 1981. “On the Definition and Criterion of Death.” Annals of Internal Medicine36 (3): 786–91.
8.
BernatJames. 2006. “The Whole-brain Concept of Death Remains Optimum Public Policy.” The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics34 (1): 35–43.
9.
BijkerWiebe. 1995. Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs: Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10.
BijkerWiebeHughesThomasPinchTervor. 1987. The Social Construction of Technological Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11.
BoasHagai. 2009. “The Struggle for the Last Moment.” Sociologia Israelit11 (1): 219–41.
12.
BoasHagaiLaviShai. 2017. “Organ Donation, Brain Death, and the Limits of Liberal Bioethics.” In Bioethics and Biopolitics in Israel—Sociolegal, Political and Empirical Analysis, edited by BoasHagaiHashiloni-DolevYaelDavidovitchNadavFilcDaniLaviShai J., 258–77. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
13.
BotkinJeffreyPostSteven. 1992. “Confusion in the Determination of Death: Distinguishing Philosophy from Physiology.” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine36 (1): 38–219.
14.
BurriRegula ValerieDumitJoseph. 2008. “Social Studies of Scientific Imaging and Visualization.” In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, edited by HackettEdwardAmsterdamkaO.LynchM.WajcmanJ., 297–318. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
15.
CambriosoAlbertoJacobiDanielKeatingPeter. 1993. “Ehrlich’s ‘Beautiful Pictures’ and the Controversial Beginnings of Immunological Imagery.” Isis84 (4): 662–99.
16.
CapronAlexander M. 2001. “Brain Death - Well Settled Yet Still Unresolved.” New England Journal of Medicine344: 1244–46.
17.
CartwrightLisa. 1995. Screening the Body: Tracing Medicine’s Visual Culture. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
18.
CasperMonica J.1994. “Reframing and Grounding Nonhuman Agency: ‘What Makes a Fetus an Agent?’” American Behavioral Scientist37 (6): 839–56.
19.
CassellEric. 1974. “Dying in a Technological Society.” Hastings Center Report2 (2): 31–36.
20.
DastonLorraineGalisonPeter. 1992. “The Image of Objectivity.” Representations9(40): 81–128.
21.
DastonLorraineGalisonPeter. 2007. Images of Objectivity. New York: Zone Books.
22.
DayLisa. 2001. “How Nurses Shift from Care of a Brain-injured Patient to Maintenance of a Brain-Dead Organ Donor.” American Journal of Critical Care10 (5): 306–12.
23.
DraperJan. 2002. “‘It Was a Real Good Show’: The Ultrasound Scan, Fathers and the Power of Visual Knowledge.” Sociology of Health & Illness24 (6): 771–95.
24.
DumitJoe, 2004. Picturing Personhood: Brain Scans and Biomedical Identities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
25.
EmanuelLinda. 1995. “Reexamining Death the Asymptotic Model and a Bounded Zone Definition.” Hastings Center Report25:27–35.
26.
FlannellyKevinSternShiraCostaKarenWeaverAndrewKoenigHarold. 2006. “Rabbis and Health: A Half-century Review of the Mental and Physical Health Care Literature:1950–1999.” Pastoral Psychology54 (6): 545–54.
27.
FoucaultMichel. 1964. The Birth of the Clinic: An Archeology of Medical Perception. New York: Pantheon Books.
28.
GiacominiMita. 1997. “A Change of Heart and a Change of Mind? Technology and the Redefinition of Death in 1968.” Social Science & Medicine44 (10): 1465–482.
29.
GlaserBarneyStraussAnselm. 1968. Time for Dying. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
30.
GoffmanErving. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday.
31.
GrodinMichael. 1994. “Religious Exemptions: Brain Death and Jewish Law.” Journal of Church and State36 (2): 357–72.
32.
GrossSky. 2009. “Experts and ‘Knowledge That Counts’: A Study into the World of Brain Cancer Diagnosis.” Social Science & Medicine69 (12): 1819–26.
33.
GrossSky E.ShuvalJudith T.. 2008. “On Knowing and Believing: Prenatal Genetic Screening and Resistance to ‘Risk-medicine.’” Health, Risk & Society10 (6): 549–64.
34.
HackingIan. 1992. “Statistical Language, Statistical Truth and Statistical Reason: The Self Authentication of a Style of Scientific Reasoning.” In The Social Dimensions of Science, edited by McMullinE., 130–57. Paris, France: University of Notre Dame Press.
35.
HaddersHans. 2009. “Enacting Death in the Intensive Care Unit: Medical Technology and the Multiple Ontologies of Death.” Health13 (6): 571–87.
36.
HalevyAmirBrodyBaruch. 1993. “Brain Death: Reconciling Definitions, Criteria and Tests.” Annals of Internal Medicine119 (6): 519–25.
37.
HertzRobert. 1904/1960. Death and the Right Hand. Glencoe, Scotland: Free Papers.
38.
HogleLinda. 1995. “Standardization across Non-standard Domains: The Case of Organ Procurement.” Science, Technology, & Human Values20 (4): 482–500.
39.
IhdeDon. 2009. Postphenomenology and Technoscience. New York: SUNY Press.
40.
JørgensenE. O.Malchow-MøllerA.. 1981. “Natural History of Global and Critical Brain Ischaemia Part I: EEG and Neurological Signs during the First Year after Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in Patients Subsequently Regaining Consciousness.” Resuscitation9 (2): 133–53.
41.
JoyceKelly. 2006. “From Numbers to Pictures: The Development of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and the Visual Turn in Medicine.” Science as Culture15 (1): 1–22.
42.
KaufmanSharonMorganLynn. 2005. “The Anthropology of the Beginnings and Ends of Life.” Annual Review of Anthropology34 (1): 317–41.
43.
KellehearAllan. 2008. “Dying as a Social Relationship: A Sociological Review of Debates on the Determination of Death.” Social Science & Medicine (1982)66 (7) (April): 1533–44.
44.
KesselringA.KainzM.KissAlexander. 2007. “Traumatic Memories of Relatives Regarding Brain Death, Request for Organ Donation and Interactions with Professionals in the ICU.” American Journal of Transplantation7 (1): 211–7.
45.
KhushfGeorge. 2010. “A Matter of Respect: A Defense of the Dead Donor Rule and of a ‘Whole-brain’ Criterion for Determination of Death.” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy35 (3): 330–64.
46.
Knorr-cetinaKarinAmannKlaus. 1990. “Image Dissection in Natural Scientific Inquiry.” Science, Technology, & Human Values15 (3): 259–83.
47.
KuninJoshua. 2004. “Brain Death: Revisiting the Rabbinic Opinions in Light of New Medical Knowledge.” Tradition: A Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought38 (4): 48–62.
48.
LatourBruno. 1994. “On Technical Mediation.” Common Knowledge3 (2): 29–64.
49.
LatourBruno. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-network Theory. New York: Oxford University Press.
50.
LessardMartinBrochuJacques. 2010. “Challenges in Diagnosing Brain Death.” Canadian Journal of Anesthesia57 (10): 882–7.
51.
LinkJurgenSchaeferMartinLangManfred. 1994. “Concepts and Diagnosis of Brain Death.” Forensic Science International69 (3): 195–203.
52.
LockMargaret. 1996. “Death in Technological Time: Locating the End of Meaningful Life.” Medical Anthropology Quarterly10 (4): 575–600.
53.
LockMargaret. 2001. Twice Dead: Organ Transplants and the Reinvention of Death. Berkeley: University of California Press.
54.
LynchThomasWoolgarSteve, ed. 1990. Representation in Scientific Practice. Cambridge: MIT Press.
55.
MartinEmily. 1987. The Woman in the Body: A Cultural Analysis of Reproduction. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
56.
MillerFranklinTruogRobert. 2010. “Decapitation and the Definition Death.” Journal of Medical Ethics36 (10): 632–34.
57.
MolAnnemarie. 2002. The Body Multiple: Ontology in Practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
58.
MolAnnemarieLawJohn. 2004. “Embodied Action, Enacted Bodies. The Example of Hypoglycaemia.” The Body and Society10 (2-3): 43–62.
PernickMartin. 1999. “Brain Death in a Cultural Context: The Reconstruction of Death, 1967-1981.” In The Definition of Death: Controversies, edited by YoungnerStuart JArnoldRobert M.SchapiroR., 3–33. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University.
61.
PrasadAmit. 2005. “Making Images/Making Bodies: Visibilizing and Disciplining through Magnetic Resonance Imaging.” Science, Technology, & Human Values30 (2): 291–316.
62.
RappaportZvi HarryRappaportI. T.. 1999. “Principles and Concepts of Brain Death and Organ Donation: The Jewish Perspective.” Neurosurgery and Medical Ethics74:61–63.
63.
RassinMichalLowenthalMiriSilnerDina. 2005. “Fear, Ambivalence, and Liminality.” JONA’s Healthcare Law, Ethics, and Regulation7 (3): 79–83.
64.
ReichmanEdward. 2004. “Don’t Pull the Plug on Brain Death Just Yet.” Tradition38 (4): 63–69.
65.
RobbinsRosemary. 1990. “Signing an Organ Donor Card: Psychological Factors.” Death Studies14 (3): 219–29.
ShewmonAlan. 2001. “The Brain and Somatic Integration: Insights into the Standard Biological Rationale for Equating ‘Brain Death’ with Death.” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy26 (5): 457–78.
71.
SiminoffLauraGordonNahidaHewletJoanArnoldRobert. 2001. “Factors Influencing Families’ Consent for Donation of Solid Organs for Transplantation.” Journal of the American Medical Association286 (1): 71–77.
72.
SismondoSergio. 2008. “Science and Technology Studies and an Engaged Program.” In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, edited by HackettEdwardAmsterdamkaOLynchM.WajcmanJ., 13–32. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
73.
StarSusan Leigh. 2010. “This Is not a Boundary Object: Reflections on the Origin of a Concept.” Science, Technology, & Human Values35 (5): 601–607.
74.
StarSusan LeighGriesemerJames. 1989. “Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-1939.” Social Studies of Science19 (3): 387–420.
75.
SteinbergAvrahamHerschM.. 1995. “Decapitation of a Pregnant Sheep: A Contribution to the Brain Death Controversy.” Transplantation Proceedings27 (2): 1886–87.
76.
SudnowDavid. 1967. Passing on: The Social Organization of Dying. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
77.
Sundin-HuardDeborahFahyKathleen. 2004. “The Problems with the Validity of the Diagnosis of Brain Death.” Nursing in Critical Care9 (2): 64–70.
78.
TaylorRobert. 1997. “Reexamining the Definition and Criteria of Death.” Seminars in Neurology17 (3): 265–70.
79.
TimmermansStefanBergMarc. 1998. “Social Death as a Self-fulfilling Prophecy: David Sudnow’s ‘Passing On’ Revisited.” The Sociological Quarterly39 (3): 453–72.
80.
TimmermansStefanBergMarc. 2003. The Gold Standard: The Challenges of Evidence Based Medicine and Standardization in Health Care. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
81.
TurnerV. (1969). The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti Structure. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
82.
WijdicksEelco. 2002. “Brain Death Worldwide.” Neurology58 (1): 20–25.
83.
WijdicksEelcoPfeiferEric. 2008. “Neuropathology of Brain Death in the Modern Transplant Era.” Neurology70 (15): 1234–7.
84.
WyattSallyBamerBrian, 2007. “Home on the Range: What and Where is the Middle in Science and Technology Studies?” Science Technology and Human Values32 (6): 619–26.
85.
YoungnerStuartArnoldRobert. 2001. “Philosophical Debates about the Definition of Death: Who Cares?” The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy26 (5): 527–37.
