NationStates Jolt Archive

I just thought of something while reading another thread. Let's say you have someone who suffers a horrible accident that results in them being almost completely brain dead. Their heart beats on it's own, but they need a ventilator to keep breathing and there is no hope of them ever speaking, waking, dreaming, or even thinking again.

So the hypothetical victim is hooked up to the machines in the hospital. Sometime in the night, a local psychopath who believes it is an unholy abomination to use technology, especially medical technology, breaks into the hospital, and stabs the victim to death (or, if you prefer, simply unplugs the machines). The psycho is subsequently caught and arrested. Should he be tried for murder? If not, what crime would he be guilty of? If nothing, do you think this is right and should be legal?

Note of clarification: Terry Schivo had brain activity, could move, and arguably respond (a major point of that debate, and for discussion in ANOTHER thread, not this one.) Unlike in the case of Terry Schivo, there is no question in anyone's mind that our hypothetical victim is a vegetable; unable to compose a thought or have any awareness of who he is or his surroundings.

Absolutely. Even though they lost that capacity to think, they are still alive and human. Killing them would still be murder because the killer is still taking an innocent life.

Technically, the only thing that determines humanity is the ability to have sex with a human.

In this case though the destruction would also be of valuable property. Think about how much money both sides got from the Terry Schiavo publicity. In the end the punishment given to the psycopath would be more severe if the dead person was thought of as a money source.

Your DNA makes you human, your brain waves make you alive, neither make you a person.

As far as headscratchers go, your question is a honeydoodle. I don't really know much about legal terminology, but I don't think it would count as murder, but I would say that it was a crime. I can't really explain why.

Do brain waves make you human? It depends.

If the section that defined your consciousness was mush as in the case of Schiavo, nahhh. You are basically nothing more then a plant.

Let them die with what little dignity is left.......

He should be tried for murder because the victim although was not technically alive as a human being has not been removed of the legal nature of being human(by being treated in a hospital she is still legally a living human). If a person with legal authority killed her then there would be no problem. The issue is not whether or not the person is still human in actuality but instead if the victim is human under law which I think the victim is considering the fact that they are being treated for a medical condition in a hospital, something that only humans do.

Technically, the only thing that determines humanity is the ability to have sex with a human.

Ergo, pre-pubescent individuals are not human?

Uh-huh.

Cogito Ergo Sum.

Ergo, pre-pubescent individuals are not human?

Uh-huh.

And thus they have less rights.

Note of clarification: Terry Schivo had brain activity, could move, and arguably respond (a major point of that debate, and for discussion in ANOTHER thread, not this one.) Unlike in the case of Terry Schivo, there is no question in anyone's mind that our hypothetical victim is a vegetable; unable to compose a thought or have any awareness of who he is or his surroundings.
That was Shiavo's case too. Nobody who knew anything and didn't have an agenda doubted that. The part of her brain that controls all those functions was liquified.

If this hypothetical person had no brain activity at all, then he was already dead. Not technically dead, but actually dead. Someone who's brain stops completely begins decaying within a few hours even with the respirator. So in that case the hospital would have pulled that particular plug a while back.

And thus they have less rights.

Full rights being granted to them in the US on average 8 or 9 years after they have become 'human' according to your definition?

We'll ignore the cases of infertiles, eunuchs, impotents, those who have taken vows of celibacy and those of very advanced years for the moment here for the sake of argument.

Now, that's a puzzler. I would say the perpetrator should be charged with murder... but then wouldn't people who pull the plug on a loved one also be a murderer? I think the distinction is that it is not for some random psycho to decide when the person should die, but the family. I think that once you cannot reply, it should be your family's decision. So I don't know if you could charge them on murder for ending a human life against the wishes of the family/doctors?

check out this thread Brian (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=390715)

Note of clarification: Terry Schivo had brain activity, could move, and arguably respond (a major point of that debate, and for discussion in ANOTHER thread, not this one.) Unlike in the case of Terry Schivo, there is no question in anyone's mind that our hypothetical victim is a vegetable; unable to compose a thought or have any awareness of who he is or his surroundings.

Actually that is not true. The autopsy showed she was blind.

Even with the film there was selective showing as there were several hours of footage and yet we only saw a couple minutes worth.

Her conscious mind was mush and she was blind.

She was gone.

Few people want to be in that state.

Whether you believe he should be or not, the person who killed the victim would be tried for premeditated murder. Even though Shiavo's feeding tube was removed and she allowed to die, that was through the consent of her guardian - not some random guy who didn’t believe in letting her live.

Before anyone tries to contest this, a person is legally alive until their heart stops, they are brain dead, and all other vital organs cease to function. Then they are officially declared dead. Until this occurs, even if someone cannot live without life-support systems, they are still considered to be legally "alive". And legality is all that matters.

Actually that is not true. The autopsy showed she was blind.

Even with the film there was selective showing as there were several hours of footage and yet we only saw a couple minutes worth.

Her conscious mind was mush and she was blind.

She was gone.

Few people want to be in that state.

Ok, I am livid! Livid, I say! (ok, not actually livid, but beside myself in astonishment). My whole point was that I didn't want this to become a thread about Terry Schivo--that whole debate was raging at the time (BEFORE THE AUTOPSY) because there was question about how brain dead she was (BEFORE THE AUTOPSY). Yes, Black Forest, the autopsy showed that she was blind. Congratulations on pointing that out. BUT MY POINT WAS THAT WE'RE NOT DISCUSSING TERRY SCHIVO. :) That's for another thread :)

So, I guess what I'm trying to say is that WE'RE NOT DISCUSSING TERRY SCHIVO.

In conclusion, WE'RE NOT DISCUSSING TERRY SCHIVO. :)

I want to clarify something here. Are you saying the victim here has no brain activity? If that is the case then he is dead by ANY definition. As I said before, a person with brain death begins decaying within hours. You can make his heart beat for a while and keep his body warm, but that is just an illusion of life. This is not "technical" at all really. So my question about the premise here is "why is the hospital keeping a corpse on very expensive and scarce machinery overnight?"

Also, if you don't want to discuss Terry Shiavo, you shouldn't bring her up in the parent post and make a bunch of claims about her that are, to be very charitable, controversial.

Death occurs when all body functions cease, and since that hasn't occurred to the victim in your example the man is committing murder.

The only reason that brain dead people are kept on ventilators is to remove their organs if they are donors.

I agree. Seeing as this actor is neither next of kin, nor has power of attorney over the victim, it would still legally be murder.

Um... why would a body begin to decay after brain death, provided the rest of the body continued to be maintained, anyway? I can't see any reason why this would be.

The only reason that brain dead people are kept on ventilators is to remove their organs if they are donors.

And to keep them fresh. Mmmm...

Oop, did I say that out loud? :eek:

:D

No. Because all animals have brain waves.

If the 'patient' is admitted to the hospital in veggistate, the doctors are often ordered not to save him-her.

Jah Bootie is absolutely correct. See Grey's Anatomy on ABC.

Always thought it funny how the "Save Terry Schivo" advocaters were mostly republican.

I agree. Seeing as this actor is neither next of kin, nor has power of attorney over the victim, it would still legally be murder.

Um... why would a body begin to decay after brain death, provided the rest of the body continued to be maintained, anyway? I can't see any reason why this would be.
I don't really know exactly, to be honest. I get this information from a person who specializes in medical ethics and works closely with doctors in situations like this.

A confirmed case of brain death doesn't require consent to remove ventilators. Doctors often humor families for a limited time (say, so a family member can see them breathing one last time) because nobody wants to make it any harder on the family than it is. But the doctors can and will remove that on their own.

That doesn't give some other joker the right to pull that plug of course. I can't really call it murder if the person is already dead though. That's quite a legal quandary there.

Also, if you don't want to discuss Terry Shiavo, you shouldn't bring her up in the parent post and make a bunch of claims about her that are, to be very charitable, controversial.

I totally agree. In the parent post, I did not initially make any mention, but the first couple of posts immediately turned to Terry Schivo, so I wanted to try to nip it in the bud. That said... WHY THE HECK ARE WE STILL TALKING ABOUT TERRY SCHIVO? :)

Editing note: I actually am really smiling when I add the smiley face :)

Would anyone agree that an alternate definition of murder is "causing the cessation of all body functions without legal authority"?

That is what is happening in the scenario described by Brian.

You can't murder someone who's already dead. While I have to wonder why a braindead person would be kept alive overnight (legal brain death requires two doctors to agree, so I guess if there were only one doctor available, or something), I would say that some guy taking it upon himself to shut off the ventilator would be a crime, I can't see sending him to jail for life for doing it. I don't really know what crime this would fall under though.

I just thought of something while reading another thread. Let's say you have someone who suffers a horrible accident that results in them being almost completely brain dead. Their heart beats on it's own, but they need a ventilator to keep breathing and there is no hope of them ever speaking, waking, dreaming, or even thinking again.

So the hypothetical victim is hooked up to the machines in the hospital. Sometime in the night, a local psychopath who believes it is an unholy abomination to use technology, especially medical technology, breaks into the hospital, and stabs the victim to death (or, if you prefer, simply unplugs the machines). The psycho is subsequently caught and arrested. Should he be tried for murder? If not, what crime would he be guilty of? If nothing, do you think this is right and should be legal?

Note of clarification: Terry Schivo had brain activity, could move, and arguably respond (a major point of that debate, and for discussion in ANOTHER thread, not this one.) Unlike in the case of Terry Schivo, there is no question in anyone's mind that our hypothetical victim is a vegetable; unable to compose a thought or have any awareness of who he is or his surroundings.
The guy who stabs or unplugs the mass of meat isn't a murderer. He's guilty of mutilating a corpse if anything.

Read.

Before anyone tries to contest this, a person is legally alive until their heart stops, they are brain dead, and all other vital organs cease to function. Then they are officially declared dead. Until this occurs, even if someone cannot live without life-support systems, they are still considered to be legally "alive". And legality is all that matters.
If they haven't been declared dead, it is murder, period. This hypothetical person has not.

Actually, I just realized I have been arguing wrongly here. Part of the problem is that the parent post is confusingly written, and I don't know what they mean by "almost brain dead". I was thinking "brain dead" the whole time, but I just noticed that he's saying this person's heart still works on its own, so this person is some distance from brain death. So yeah, murder basically.

Actually, I just realized I have been arguing wrongly here. Part of the problem is that the parent post is confusingly written, and I don't know what they mean by "almost brain dead". I was thinking "brain dead" the whole time, but I just noticed that he's saying this person's heart still works on its own, so this person is some distance from brain death. So yeah, murder basically.
So it comes down to whether or not the heart is beating rather than whether or not the person will ever be able to think and feel again?

Before anyone tries to contest this, a person is legally alive until their heart stops, they are brain dead, and all other vital organs cease to function. Then they are officially declared dead. Until this occurs, even if someone cannot live without life-support systems, they are still considered to be legally "alive". And legality is all that matters.

This is technically incorrect. The heart stopping is not part of the legal definition of dead. Once the person is brain dead, they are legally considered to be dead - even if the heart is still beating. The heart stopping is only used as an indicator. If the heart has been stopped for long enough, the person will be brain dead, as the brain will not be receiving nutrients.

If your definition was correct, organ donation would be impossible, as organs can be removed from someone who is brain dead, but not someone whose heart has stopped. When organ donation occurs, the heart is still beating, and the donor is generally hooked up to life support.

Now, as for whether or not stabbing a brain-dead person would be legally considered murder, that isn't really something I can answer. The law is not always horribly consistent. Technically, if the person is brain-dead, they are legally dead, and you cannot kill a dead person.

So it comes down to whether or not the heart is beating rather than whether or not the person will ever be able to think and feel again?
Murder is a pretty simple matter. If you kill a person who is alive, without any excuse or exemption, then you committed murder. If this guy's heart is beating, then he was alive and some guy has no authority to come in and kill him. I don't really see how you can argue otherwise.

Actually, I just realized I have been arguing wrongly here. Part of the problem is that the parent post is confusingly written, and I don't know what they mean by "almost brain dead". I was thinking "brain dead" the whole time, but I just noticed that he's saying this person's heart still works on its own, so this person is some distance from brain death. So yeah, murder basically.

The heart can continue beating even if a person is brain dead. This term does not refer to cessation of all neural function - the brain stem may still be working - but refers to the cessation of all higher-order neural function. Once the higher order function (beyond simply regulating heartbeat/etc.) is gone, a person is declared brain-dead.

Meanwhile, even if the brain stem ceases functioning, the heart will continue beating on its own for a while. The brain does not completely control the beating of the heart - it has its own node for that. The brain really only sends signals to the heart to change the rate of beating. I have, myself, worked with a heart (albeit not human) that had been cut out of an animal, kept in electrolyte solution, and was still beating. Even heart muscle cells will begin spontaneously beating.

Murder is a pretty simple matter. If you kill a person who is alive, without any excuse or exemption, then you committed murder. If this guy's heart is beating, then he was alive and some guy has no authority to come in and kill him. I don't really see how you can argue otherwise.
It hinges on one's definition of "alive" and "dead". A mere heartbeat with no higher mental functions qualifies as "dead" for me.

It hinges on one's definition of "alive" and "dead". A mere heartbeat with no higher mental functions qualifies as "dead" for me.

As it does for the medical community.

It hinges on one's definition of "alive" and "dead". A mere heartbeat with no higher mental functions qualifies as "dead" for me.
Well, we have a couple of questions asked:

what crime WOULD he be guilty of? No matter what your feelings are, this is murder. If we change the legal definition of life, then it might not be. But that hasn't happened and won't likely

Is this right and should it be legal? Do you really think that it should be just anybody's decision that a person should be taken off of life support? You see a person on life support and you say "they're dead by some definition, let's just unplug that cord and let them get gone." Decisions like that are not to be taken lightly by any stretch.

As it does for the medical community.
Not exactly man. A lack of higher brain function is a vegetative state.

The heart can continue beating even if a person is brain dead. This term does not refer to cessation of all neural function - the brain stem may still be working - but refers to the cessation of all higher-order neural function. Once the higher order function (beyond simply regulating heartbeat/etc.) is gone, a person is declared brain-dead.

Meanwhile, even if the brain stem ceases functioning, the heart will continue beating on its own for a while. The brain does not completely control the beating of the heart - it has its own node for that. The brain really only sends signals to the heart to change the rate of beating. I have, myself, worked with a heart (albeit not human) that had been cut out of an animal, kept in electrolyte solution, and was still beating. Even heart muscle cells will begin spontaneously beating.
Actually, brain death is by definition a ceasing of ALL brain function. This hypothetical guy is "almost" brain dead, whatever that means. I am aware that the heart can beat without the brain, but it does stop not too long afterward if machines are taken off.

Not exactly man. A lack of higher brain function is a vegetative state.

...which is essentially indistinguishable from brain death.

The only real difference (and even this is disputed) between brain death and a vegetative state is that a person in a vegetative state does not have to be on a ventilator to continue breathing.

Thus, you are correct I believe, in that a person who has only lost higher order function is not technically brain dead.

You are still incorrect, however, in your assertion that someone whose heart is beating is not brain dead. It is entirely possible, and even necessary for organ donation, that a person be brain dead and still have a heartbeat. That seems to be what the original post was describing - someone who is completely brain dead, but who is having their organs kept alive through life support. Really, the only reason to do this is to keep the organs alive for donation.

...which is essentially indistinguishable from brain death.

The only real difference (and even this is disputed) between brain death and a vegetative state is that a person in a vegetative state does not have to be on a ventilator to continue breathing.

Thus, you are correct I believe, in that a person who has only lost higher order function is not technically brain dead.

You are still incorrect, however, in your assertion that someone whose heart is beating is not brain dead. It is entirely possible, and even necessary for organ donation, that a person be brain dead and still have a heartbeat. That seems to be what the original post was describing - someone who is completely brain dead, but who is having their organs kept alive through life support. Really, the only reason to do this is to keep the organs alive for donation.

I thought exactly what you are saying (the parent post is somewhat confusing) and argued it for a while. But upon a closer reading I see that he says that the heart is still beating without a machine.

I will admit that I have no medical training, however former professor and current colleague of mine has a certain expertise in this area and I have learned a lot from him about it. I admit that I could be wrong about this though, and if you could point me to something that states that a heart can beat independently of life support in a brain dead person, I would graciously admit that I am wrong here.

This hypothetical guy is "almost" brain dead, whatever that means. I am aware that the heart can beat without the brain, but it does stop not too long afterward if machines are taken off.

Considering the original post, it seems that the original poster is simply unaware of this fact. The original poster made it clear that machines had to be used to keep this person alive, but seemed to think that a heartbeat made them less brain dead. This is incorrect.

Now, if the original poster would like to clarify whether he is talking about a vegetative state (in which a feeding tube would be necessary, but lower order brain function would not cease and breathing would occur on its own) and complete brain death (machines necessary to continue breathing, etc.), then perhaps we can have a discussion.

If the case is actually brain death, the person is legally dead. Someone who comes in and stabs them has committed a crime - probably breaking and entering and desecration of a corpse or something like that, but one cannot "murder" a dead person. If the person is in a vegetative state, the "psycho" has legally committed murder.

Also, I am sure that there are other differences between brain death and vegetative states. A person in a vegetative state can live for years on life support. A brain dead person begins decaying within a couple of days despite the life support.

I thought exactly what you are saying (the parent post is somewhat confusing) and argued it for a while. But upon a closer reading I see that he says that the heart is still beating without a machine.

I will admit that I have no medical training, however former professor and current colleague of mine has a certain expertise in this area and I have learned a lot from him about it. I admit that I could be wrong about this though, and if you could point me to something that states that a heart can beat independently of life support in a brain dead person, I would graciously admit that I am wrong here.

Life support does not provide anything at all for a heartbeat. It provides breathing and nutrition. The heartbeat continues on its own because it is still obtaining nutrients, not because there is any brain function.

The only machine one can hook up to provide a heatbeat is an artificial heart - which is not a normal part of life support.

Edit: To clarify, I am talking about life support generally used on patients whose brains have ceased to function. A heart/lung bypass machine is referred to as life support, but is used in surgeries, not in what most people would refer to as "life support."

Considering the original post, it seems that the original poster is simply unaware of this fact. The original poster made it clear that machines had to be used to keep this person alive, but seemed to think that a heartbeat made them less brain dead. This is incorrect.

Now, if the original poster would like to clarify whether he is talking about a vegetative state (in which a feeding tube would be necessary, but lower order brain function would not cease and breathing would occur on its own) and complete brain death (machines necessary to continue breathing, etc.), then perhaps we can have a discussion.

If the case is actually brain death, the person is legally dead. Someone who comes in and stabs them has committed a crime - probably breaking and entering and desecration of a corpse or something like that, but one cannot "murder" a dead person. If the person is in a vegetative state, the "psycho" has legally committed murder.
I fully agree with these conclusions.

Actually, I just realized I have been arguing wrongly here. Part of the problem is that the parent post is confusingly written, and I don't know what they mean by "almost brain dead". I was thinking "brain dead" the whole time, but I just noticed that he's saying this person's heart still works on its own, so this person is some distance from brain death. So yeah, murder basically.

That's a good point, and I'll hope to clarify. I'm obviously not a doctor, so I don't know what level of brain activity is necessary to perform whatever physiological functions. I was mainly concerned that if I said there was absolutely no brain activity, someone would come back and say that their heart wouldn't be beating, or their immune system would be inoperative, or something else would be going on that I'm simply too ignorant on the subject to have considered. The main emphasis was on the fact that whatever the physiological state of our hypothetical guy, he is permanently unconscious; he'll never think again; he'll never dream again; he'll never be aware of his surroundings again.

Well, we have a couple of questions asked:

what crime WOULD he be guilty of? No matter what your feelings are, this is murder. If we change the legal definition of life, then it might not be. But that hasn't happened and won't likely

Is this right and should it be legal? Do you really think that it should be just anybody's decision that a person should be taken off of life support? You see a person on life support and you say "they're dead by some definition, let's just unplug that cord and let them get gone." Decisions like that are not to be taken lightly by any stretch.
A) I'm no lawyer, but if it was my decision what to charge him with I guess I'd charge him with mutilating a corpse or something.

B) I think it should be the decision of a doctor after tests have been conducted to show whether or not there is enough of the brain left to support thought. I don't think it should be up to just anybody, and I don't think it should be up to the family. BTW, according to Dempublicents my definition of life is more or less how the medical community defines life, so I'm not changing the definition.

Also, I am sure that there are other differences between brain death and vegetative states. A person in a vegetative state can live for years on life support. A brain dead person begins decaying within a couple of days despite the life support.
That's not true at all. The immune system, which is still unharmed in a brain dead person, will continue to protect from decay as long as nutrition and oxygen are provided to the body.

This is technically incorrect. The heart stopping is not part of the legal definition of dead. Once the person is brain dead, they are legally considered to be dead - even if the heart is still beating. The heart stopping is only used as an indicator. If the heart has been stopped for long enough, the person will be brain dead, as the brain will not be receiving nutrients.

If your definition was correct, organ donation would be impossible, as organs can be removed from someone who is brain dead, but not someone whose heart has stopped. When organ donation occurs, the heart is still beating, and the donor is generally hooked up to life support.

Now, as for whether or not stabbing a brain-dead person would be legally considered murder, that isn't really something I can answer. The law is not always horribly consistent. Technically, if the person is brain-dead, they are legally dead, and you cannot kill a dead person.

This would probably be a good time to point out that we don't all live in the same place, so if you're concerned about the legal definitions, it may vary from location to location. So you could actually both be right, really.

BTW, according to Dempublicents my definition of life is more or less how the medical community defines life, so I'm not changing the definition.

I had to clarify that a bit. You are correct that having a heartbeat does not make a person alive - it is brain function that does that. However, you (and I a few minutes ago when I was a bit mixed up) are wrong that someone is not considered legally alive if they have only lost higher order brain function. To my knowledge, as long as the person can lay in bed without life support and continue breathing, using nutrients, etc., they are technically "alive". I wouldn't call it much of a life, but it is life.

The following link explains brain death:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_death

As I said, a heartbeat can be present, but all neurological activity in the brain has ceased.

Of course, I do have one issue with this entry - "necrotic" is not the only way brain cells could be dead. They could also die through apoptosis, but that is another issue altogether LOL


Ok, so now we have a working definition of brain dead. =)

Life support does not provide anything at all for a heartbeat. It provides breathing and nutrition. The heartbeat continues on its own because it is still obtaining nutrients, not because there is any brain function.

The only machine one can hook up to provide a heatbeat is an artificial heart - which is not a normal part of life support.

Edit: To clarify, I am talking about life support generally used on patients whose brains have ceased to function. A heart/lung bypass machine is referred to as life support, but is used in surgeries, not in what most people would refer to as "life support."

I wasn't really aware of this. I suppose this changes things considerably. The question really needs some clarification then, because "almost brain dead" isn't going to cut it.

Imagine all the Africans who could have been saved if the time, money and effort spent on the Schiavo fiasco had been spent on Africa instead.

This would probably be a good time to point out that we don't all live in the same place, so if you're concerned about the legal definitions, it may vary from location to location. So you could actually both be right, really.
You could be right, but I'm not really aware of any jurisdiction that has adopted the "higher brain death" standard. Certainly none exist in the us. Several bioethics scholars have made good arguments for it however.

Considering the original post, it seems that the original poster is simply unaware of this fact. The original poster made it clear that machines had to be used to keep this person alive, but seemed to think that a heartbeat made them less brain dead. This is incorrect.

Now, if the original poster would like to clarify whether he is talking about a vegetative state (in which a feeding tube would be necessary, but lower order brain function would not cease and breathing would occur on its own) and complete brain death (machines necessary to continue breathing, etc.), then perhaps we can have a discussion.
.


Well, as I said after you wrote your message, but before I wrote what I'm writing now, I'm not a doctor and I am aware of my informational limitations. Maybe my previous post will sufficiently answer your question. Nonetheless, our hypothetical person needs a feeding tube and cannot breathe on his own.

I had to clarify that a bit. You are correct that having a heartbeat does not make a person alive - it is brain function that does that. However, you (and I a few minutes ago when I was a bit mixed up) are wrong that someone is not considered legally alive if they have only lost higher order brain function. To my knowledge, as long as the person can lay in bed without life support and continue breathing, using nutrients, etc., they are technically "alive". I wouldn't call it much of a life, but it is life.

The following link explains brain death:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_death

As I said, a heartbeat can be present, but all neurological activity in the brain has ceased.

Of course, I do have one issue with this entry - "necrotic" is not the only way brain cells could be dead. They could also die through apoptosis, but that is another issue altogether LOL


Ok, so now we have a working definition of brain dead. =)
Gotcha. I stand corrected.

Well, as I said after you wrote your message, but before I wrote what I'm writing now, I'm not a doctor and I am aware of my informational limitations. Maybe my previous post will sufficiently answer your question. Nonetheless, our hypothetical person needs a feeding tube and cannot breathe on his own.

I understand. I'm in the general area of medicine, and I wasn't completely sure of the definition.

I posted it up above, however, and one can be completely brain dead and still have a heartbeat - as the heartbeat is not really dependent on brain function. Thus, it might be a good idea if you alter your original post a bit to avoid confusion. You might even include the wikipedia link, so everyone is on the same page about what brain dead means.

OK, well if we have decided that this person has been declared brain dead (assuming that the legal requirement of two independent doctors confirming this diagnosis) then no murder occurs here. To be honest, I have no idea if this has ever been settled in a court of law, or indeed if this has ever happened (I'm pretty sure that absent organ donation, the plug is pulled immediately, and if there is an organ donation it is done as soon as possible, so the window of opportunity for someone to do something like this is pretty small.)