Thank you for that HH. I would also be interested to know what you think of this hypothetical: What if technology were developed to modify the DNA of a cell, such that if the nucleus was transferred into an unfertilised ovum, the ovum would then have the capacity to develop into an anencephalic human being. As this human being would have no consciousness, would it then be morally acceptable to harvest stem cells from this embryo?

Cris, thats fine, as you correctly note, for many people the brain
is a total enigma. If you are ever interested, the following is
a pretty good little website to explain some fundamentals to you.

http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/neurok.html

To understand a bit about the brain, you need to look at its so
called 3 evolving sections and how they evolved. In the centre
is the brain stem, it governs beathing etc. Next the so called
limbic system, our emotional centres. Lastly the thinking bits
or the neo cortex. Where we humans differ to other species is
in the neo cortex. Mammals have one, but ours is the one that
lets us think and reason to the extent that we can, compared
to other species.

The neo cortex finally develops far enough to be able to function,
in week 25. Before that its still taking shape. Once its functioning,
you have what can be called a person, with a human brain.

Many hate my analogy of a car, but I think its a good one :)

A piece of steel is not a car. Its a potential car. A chassis
is still a chassis. A car becomes a car, when you put the engine
in it. Without an engine, its not yet a car.

Yabby,

The standard definition of person is: a rational being. (Boethius: “An individual substance of a rational nature”) The universe for all we know, could teem with them – most not having human brains. The human brain seems to be necessary for us to exercise our rationality, since it appears a consequence of our having human brains that we can do so. But ‘having a human brain’ is not the definition of ‘person’.

If you insist on your non-standard definition, I’m not going to let it get in the way of our discussion. But your earlier remark re. “unaware” cells is clearly misleading: According to you now, “unawareness” is nothing to do with why these cells are to be treated as disposable, except perhaps that it might be evidence they don’t have a human brain.

Could you give your argument, then as to why having a human brain has such life or death significance? Your answer, note, cannot be something like “because that makes someone a person” – that would be circular reasoning. Why is being a person - in your restricted definition - so important? What is crucial about having this particular human organ, as opposed to, say a human heart or lungs or liver?

Here is the direction of my argument. The brain is important precisely because of its relation to awareness/‘mind’/rationality. Although Jack is severely incapacitated by his damaged brain and as far as we can tell, completely unaware beyond a vegetative level, he remains a human being. That is, he still has a rational nature which cannot be exercised fully just now. Jack is a bit like a violin maestro with a stringless violin in his hand – he retains his identity as a maestro nevertheless.

Likewise, the zygote/embryo is a rational being incapable of exercising its rationality until it constructs its brain. It’s like a maestro who builds a violin for himself.

A zygote is a cell that contains a very special DNA code: one that enables it to mature into a human being with a brain. No sperm, ova or other cell has that.

Thank you for your response Yabby, and for directing me to resources to aid my understanding of the human brain.

My question was … Q. If our Australian politicians were to formulate legislation that defined the right to live - based on your human brain criteria - how would they define a human brain that has the right to live, and a human brain that does not?

In response to my question you wrote; ‘ … The neo cortex finally develops far enough to be able to function, in week 25. … Once it is functioning, you have what can be called a person, with a human brain. … ‘

If a functioning neo cortex is representative of a fully developed human brain, the criteria changes to the following:

1. No functioning neo cortex = no human brain.
2. No human brain = not considered a person.
3. Not considered a person = no value = no right to life.

With reference to the neo cortex, how would you further define the word ‘functioning’?

Fester, good question.

I assume we’re talking here about the severest form of anencephalia.

As you’re aware, the presence of consciousness is not, for me, a consideration. (Zygotes, which I argue have a right to life, have no “consciousness” in a higher sense, though they are busy developing the apparatus which will enable it.) So the issue for me is, given the nature of their irreversible and severe incapacity, can anencephalics be classed as human beings?

My understanding is that anencephalics at least have rudimentary brain stem activity, which regulates, while they’re alive, certain body functions and response mechanisms. So though they are permanently and severely incapacitated, they are still self-organising entities, and not just masses of disorganised human tissue. From this it follows that they are, as you say, human beings, though of a type that will never have the physical apparatus wherewith they might exercise their innate rationality (while on earth, at least). If this is true, then on my principle that no innocent ( ie non-dangerously wicked) human being can be intentionally or recklessly killed, they too, should be spared.

I should add that it would be an evil act to manipulate a cell so as to set up this (or any other) deformity in someone.

HH - a few points I'd like to make about the coma argument:

Firstly - even in cases such as comas, the brain is operating on a very basic level - I'm not aware of any people awakening from a brain that has ceased functioning entirely (I could be wrong) but I'd always been under the impression that there was very minor activity in these cases.

Even if this is not the case: Jack's brain has functioned - he has experienced thought - it may be on hiatus, but a hiatus is different to something that has yet to be.

Measuring brain activity is something that is indeed very difficult - a person may be incapable of responding to stimuli, but still have brain activity.
The thing is, basic electrical impulses are still firing - as we are still largely ignorant of the human brain, we still can't define precisely what is going on.

In some cases however, the brain is completely silent - incapable of subconscious activity such as regulating breathing and heartbeat, and incapable of conscious thought.
Is this brain truly alive? Is this person alive? this is when they 'flick the switch' as it were. You can argue the morality of these cases, though in practical terms the enormous resources sustaining these people can help others who have a far greater chance of benefit from medical care...