By Ariel Zeleznikow-Johnston

WHAT IS DEATH AND IS IT REALLY NECESSARY?

Review by Gunnel Minett

To summarise this book in one word, it would be thought-provoking. Even the title of the book will probably be seen as a provocation by many. And the first part of the book intensifies this by challenging our firm belief that death is inevitable. But is this belief based on science or culture? 

This is the question the author wants the reader to consider. He gives several examples of how this belief that our life-span must be limited to around 80 years for humans may have some ambiguity about it. Why can’t human beings live longer when, for instance, a turtle can live to be several hundred years old? 

For previous generations the question of life and death was more straightforward than today. Before modern medicine a person died when they stopped breathing and/or their heart stopped beating: there was no way back to life.

Today this is no longer the case. Modern medicine can keep a person alive when their vital functions have shut down. So we have to ask ourselves, according to the author, what does death mean? When can we say that a person is dead? If it isn’t when a person can’t breathe or keep their heat beating, when is a person dead? 

If we decide that it has to do with consciousness, the question becomes complicated. We are all unconscious during sleep, but this does not mean that we die every night. Nor can we argue that as long as we are the same person, in the same body, we are alive. But a person can lose their sense of who they are and still be regarded as the same person. We also know that cells in the body are replaced on a regular basis.

Another aspect of death and dying is connected with AI. There are already experiments in which neurones in the brain are replaced with computer chips. So, as with the question of transplants, the author poses the question as to how much of a person’s body can be replaced before we regard it as being a different person altogether. We tend to accept that most body parts can be replaced except for the brain. To explain this the authors gives several examples as to how we experience a human being to be ‘a person’. 

The author puts forward a possible definition of death as “…’the irreversible loss of personal identity’. By this definition, a person does not die once their heart stops or their brainstem fails to tell their lungs to breathe…. Instead, a specific person survives so long as the personality, memories, desires, and other core aspects that make up their identity still exists.” [p 98] His conclusion is that “As long as your connectome continues to exist, you exist.” [p 226] (Connectome is the collective word for the full set of synapses or brain connections that are essential for keeping the person’s identity.)

The issue of death and dying is also of particular interest in Britain at the moment, with a proposal to legislate for assisted dying before parliament. This discussion is emotionally challenging for many. In particular when it comes to people who are relying on medical assistance to stay alive. So along similar lines, another question arises. Are we always helping a person by keeping them alive with medical interventions or should we instead ask if it is morally justifiable to artificially prevent a person from dying?  

The book offers thorough explanations as to how it may be possible to prevent death altogether in the future. Even if these arguments may not convince you of the morality and practicality of preserving life they will certainly offer a lot of food for thought.  

Published by All Lane, London, 2024, ISBN 9780241655894