76 | CO NTRO VERSIES IN THE D ETERMINATIO N O F D EATH

Thirty-five years ago, William F. May used the phrase, “the newly
dead,” to describe the bodies of those who still present the outward
form of the living human beings they once were, even as mourning
for their loss has already begun. As May wrote,

The cadaver is a kind of shroud that now masks rather

than expresses the soul that once animated it. And yet—
while the body retains its recognizable form, even in death,
it commands a certain respect. No longer a human pres-
ence, it still reminds us of that presence which once was
utterly inseparable from it.4

To realize that death has come— even in the midst of technological

interventions— is to know that the time has come to think and to
act in different ways toward the newly dead human being. It is time
to pay the deceased our respects, to mourn their passing— and to
do so in the presence of, and with careful regard for, their mortal
remains. It is also time to withhold or to withdraw such treatments
as would actually constitute mistreatment of the newly dead. Finally,
depending on the wishes of the patient and the family, it may also
be time to begin the procurement of organs for the morally defen-
sible purpose of helping the sick.

This is, perhaps, the most valuable fruit of reflecting on the founda-
tions of today’s neurological standard for death and finding them
basically sound: The death of a human being is recognized for what
it is, and those who survive are enabled to accept that death with
finality and to regard their loved one’s mortal remains with respect.

��