When does soul leave body? Specific Scenario

[Michaelangelo]

There is, technically speaking, no specific moment of death. The human body consists of several systems and a plethora of organs. Each having very different properties. Some have a rapid electron cycle and other have a slow electron cycle. Dying is the process of shutting down these systems and this process usually starts quite some time before someone take their last breath. (Of course the exception is when there is a catastrophic event like a major trauma.) People working close to dying patiens will recognise the signs of the onset of this process as there are several typical signs. The cessation of circulation is just one of the steps in this process which continues for days after the heart stops.

 

[o_mlly]

There is, technically speaking, no specific moment of death.

Technically speaking, there is a specific time of death, the time at which the doctor with the authority to do so declares the person dead.

Relative to persons on life support, that time follows the performance of the “brain dead” protocols and the attending physician declares the unresponsive patient “dead”. Of course, the dead patient is still mechanically breathing and the bodily systems dependent on oxygenation survive the patient, so to speak.

 

[Michaelangelo]

Michaelangelo:

There is, technically speaking, no specific moment of death.

Technically speaking, there is a specific time of death, the time at which the doctor with the authority to do so declares the person dead.

Relative to persons on life support, that time follows the performance of the “brain dead” protocols and the attending physician declares the unresponsive patient “dead”. Of course, the dead patient is still mechanically breathing and the bodily systems dependent on oxygenation survive the patient, so to speak.

The laws surrounding this might look a little different in various parts of the world. But the declaration of “time of death” by a physician is strictly speaking just a legal technicality. Medically speaking it is a declaration that the dying process has reached a certain point.

 

[o_mlly]

Medically speaking it is a declaration that the dying process has reached a certain point.

Medically speaking is technically speaking. The declaration is more than just a certain point in the dying process. It is the termination of that process and the patient. Metaphysically, that technical judgement may be a false. I think that is the point of the OP; the OP asks for a specific scenario. Patients on life support have just such a specific scenario with grave moral issues surrounding the declaration of their death; at that point (ceteris paribus) their vital organs can be excised. If they were not dead, they are now.

 

[Michaelangelo]

Medically speaking is technically speaking. The declaration is more than just a certain point in the dying process. It is the termination of that process and the patient.

I think your argumuent weakens drastically if you take my whole reply into consideration instead of that cherry picked single sentence. The declaration of death by a physician is done for legal reasons. It has no bearing on the dying process itself.

 

[Wesrock]

o_mlly:

Always? First, the phrase “in the body” does not appear in this thread once. One post phrases the union as integrated . The verb leaves is not limited to the material world. So you can leave that thought behind.

Well, the thread also includes words like ‘depart’ and ‘separated from’. And what is the difference, in relation to my question, of ‘in’ and ‘integrated with’. Are there things that are ‘integrated with’ a material thing but not ‘in’ it?

It’s mostly just poetic. But the soul obviously isn’t like a ghost as portrayed in movies. In popular movies, a ghost seems to be some type of ethereal material.

 

[o_mlly]

I think your argumuent weakens drastically if you take my whole reply into consideration instead of that cherry picked single sentence. The declaration of death by a physician is done for legal reasons. It has no bearing on the dying process itself.

I make no argument; only the distinction among the technical, legal, moral and metaphysical moments of death. The technical is determined by medical science. The legal and, presently in Catholic thinking, the moral depend on the same technical judgement.

An argument may be made as to the level of certainty necessary for a “brain dead” determination as presently that is, as it relates to organ transplant, the equivalent to death. Because the technical judgement controls, actions may be morally permissible on a cadaver that would be immoral if performed on a living person. Since we cannot know the metaphysical or actual moment of death, how certain must the technical judgement be? That is a moral question (and we are in the Moral Theology forum). But as I wrote, another thread most likely.

 

[Michaelangelo]

I make no argument; only the distinction among the technical, legal, moral and metaphysical moments of death. The technical is determined by medical science. The legal and, presently in Catholic thinking, the moral depend on the same technical judgement.

An argument may be made as to the level of certainty necessary for a “brain dead” determination as presently that is, as it relates to organ transplant, the equivalent to death. Because the technical judgement controls, actions may be morally permissible on a cadaver that would be immoral if performed on a living person. Since we cannot know the metaphysical or actual moment of death, how certain must the technical judgement be? That is a moral question (and we are in the Moral Theology forum). But as I wrote, another thread most likely.

Which is why I replied as I did. The physician declares a person dead based upon which stage in the dying process the person has been found to be in. This declaration, based upon a medical examination, have a wide range of legal consequences. Such legal consequences might be of a medical nature like donation of organs. But also something totally different like legal technicalities surrounding a huge business corporation directly effecting thousands upon thousands of people.

A declaration of a person being dead does not mean the whole system is dead. Unless in special cases, such as severe trauma, a person goes through the dying process over several days and the declaration of death occurs close to certain specific moments in the dying process. Those specific moments are cessation of circulation and inactivation of the most fundamental parts of the CNS. Other parts of the body are doing just fine and will continue to do so for some time.

So there is a specific moment of death from a legal point of view. From a medical point of view death is a process occuring over several days.

Whatever bearing this have on discussions in various philosophical subcategories I do not know. I just wanted to clarify that there is no moment of death strictly medically speaking. No matter if people are saying “he died instantly”.

 

[Katie777]

In Catholicism the body is a temple of the Holy Spirit that lives within us.

 

[Anesti33]

In fact, this is true for all baptized Christians.

 

[Neithan]

we can’t directly observe the separation of body and soul

Can we see it indirectly? I believe in hylomorphism as well. Since the soul is immaterial, there is no separate location for it; since it’s the substantial form of the body, if the body is still there, isn’t the soul still there? The visual separation is the gradual process of the body’s physical decay.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

I can say that first responders will not attempt CPR on a body with obvious signs of decay

 

[o_mlly]

Which is why I replied as I did. The physician declares a person dead based upon which stage in the dying process the person has been found to be in.

Why does the fact that dying is a process which technically begins at birth have any relevance to the OP? If the evidence that medical science uses to declare a person to be no longer a person, i.e. dead, but you claim the same person is not dead but dying, then what evidence does suffice to declare a person to be at the end of the living process?

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

then what evidence does suffice to declare a person to be at the end of the living process ?

From a medical standpoint, lack of pulse and respiration for five minutes and lack of reflexes (which would reflect brain activity).

While observing the dying process, it’s not always clear when the person crosses the line from Alive to Dead.

But if you go into the room and the person is dead, it’s pretty obvious from their color, general slackening of facial and neck muscles (and of course, not breathing).

 

[o_mlly]

From a medical standpoint, lack of pulse and respiration for five minutes and lack of reflexes (which would reflect brain activity).

While observing the dying process, it’s not always clear when the person crosses the line from Alive to Dead.

But if you go into the room and the person is dead, it’s pretty obvious from their color, general slackening of facial and neck muscles (and of course, not breathing).

Yes, I understand.

I’d like the other poster to clarify as he/she seems to be saying the declared dead are not really dead but still dying.

Metaphysically, one’s body cannot be both dying and dead at the same moment.

One can be living and dying at the same moment but one cannot be dead and living at the same moment.

So, from the living perspective, for clarification, I’ve asked the poster to comment as to what evidences that the living process has ended. The chemicals in a dead body may continue to react but does not constitute life.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

There are documented cases where the person was without discernible heartbeat for more than five minutes and then revived even in the absence of resuscitation efforts.

But they’re very rare.

As in a doctor or nurse will prolly go through their whole career and never see it even once.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

we can’t directly observe the separation of body and soul

Can we see it indirectly? I believe in hylomorphism as well. Since the soul is immaterial, there is no separate location for it; since it’s the substantial form of the body, if the body is still there, isn’t the soul still there? The visual separation is the gradual process of the body’s physical decay.

Well, a corpse isn’t a human being anymore from a hylemorphic perspective. What once was a unity under the same substantial form (soul) becomes becomes just a collection of separate parts.

As for indirectly observing when the soul leaves the body… yes, we can in a way, by observing the body’s properties and operations. And I think that’s what the medical approach to declaring death aims at doing.

 

[Michaelangelo]

Michaelangelo:

Which is why I replied as I did. The physician declares a person dead based upon which stage in the dying process the person has been found to be in.

Why does the fact that dying is a process which technically begins at birth have any relevance to the OP? If the evidence that medical science uses to declare a person to be no longer a person, i.e. dead, but you claim the same person is not dead but dying, then what evidence does suffice to declare a person to be at the end of the living process?

The OP and several others in this thread have been talking about a specific moment which separate life from death. I wanted to clarify that such a specific moment only exist from a legal point of view and occurs upon declaration by a person entrusted to do so.

The person being declared dead is not necessarily the same thing as the whole system being dead. Does that answer your second question?

 

[Wesrock]

o_mlly:

Michaelangelo:

Which is why I replied as I did. The physician declares a person dead based upon which stage in the dying process the person has been found to be in.

Why does the fact that dying is a process which technically begins at birth have any relevance to the OP? If the evidence that medical science uses to declare a person to be no longer a person, i.e. dead, but you claim the same person is not dead but dying, then what evidence does suffice to declare a person to be at the end of the living process?

The OP and several others in this thread have been talking about a specific moment which separate life from death. I wanted to clarify that such a specific moment only exist from a legal point of view and occurs upon declaration by a person entrusted to do so.

The person being declared dead is not necessarily the same thing as the whole system being dead. Does that answer your second question?

Point taken, and you’re comments about systems continue to operate is perfectly true, but you seem to be approaching this from a material reductionist standpoint. I’m not inclined to try to disabuse you of that notion in this topic, I only want to say that’s not the only take on the question. The fact that some cells continue to carry out some functions even after an event such as brain death does not contradict all of the other takes about judging when a human being ceases to be.

 

[Michaelangelo]

I’d like the other poster to clarify as he/she seems to be saying the declared dead are not really dead but still dying.

I already explained that the declaration of death, in most cases, is based upon confirmation that the dying process has reached certain very specific stages. But the dying process as a whole still has a long way to go before the entire system is dead. It takes days.

Metaphysically, one’s body cannot be both dying and dead at the same moment.

In medicine the terms legally dead and clinically dead exist at the same time. That is, the person is dead but the system is not.

One can be living and dying at the same moment but one cannot be dead and living at the same moment.

Explained above.

So, from the living perspective, for clarification, I’ve asked the poster to comment as to what evidences that the living process has ended. The chemicals in a dead body may continue to react but does not constitute life.

The person is declared dead based upon specific criteria. This is not the same thing as the system being dead. Just do a little reading on what the definition a living cell is and the dying process as a whole.