Biology Forums - Study Force

1. Your textbook distinguishes between biological and psychological deaths (pages 298-304). First, briefly summarize each of these positions. Second, according to each of these positions, would Terry Wallis be considered alive or dead?
2. Would it have been morally wrong to end Terry's life given the initial diagnosis?


Responses to each question should be in-depth and around 100-200 words each. (200-400 total)

I may be wrong on the biological/psychological death, since I don't have access to your textbook. Anyway, to my understanding, biological death means the body stops functioning entirely, with no heartbeat or brain activity, essentially marking the end of physical life. Psychological death, however, refers to losing consciousness and cognitive abilities, even if the body is still alive. So, in Terry Wallis' case, he was biologically alive since his heart was beating and he was breathing. But, while in a persistent vegetative state, he'd be considered psychologically dead due to the lack of awareness and interaction with his surroundings.


There is no easy answer to this question. If the doctors had known for certain that Terry would never regain consciousness, then it may have been morally acceptable to end his life. However, if there was even a small chance that he could recover, then it would have been wrong to end his life. In cases like this, it is usually best to err on the side of caution and give the patient every opportunity to recover.

If the doctors had known for certain that Terry would never regain consciousness, then it may have been morally acceptable to end his life. This is because it would have been clear that he was suffering and had no hope of recovery. However, if there was even a small chance that he could recover, then it would have been wrong to end his life. This is because there would have been a possibility that he could have regained consciousness and had a good quality of life.

In cases like this, it is usually best to err on the side of caution and give the patient every opportunity to recover. This is because it is better to give someone a chance at life than to end their life prematurely.

Another reason why it would have been wrong to end Terry's life is because of the impact it would have had on his family and friends. They would have had to live with the knowledge that they could have done more to help him.  Additionally, ending Terry's life would have been a violation of his autonomy. He should have been given the chance to make his own decisions about his life and death.