This paper aims to determine whether it is necessary to propose the extreme of putrefaction as the only unmistakable sign in diagnosing the death of the human organism, as David Oderberg does in a recent paper. To that end, we compare Oderberg’s claims to those of other authors who align with him in espousing the so-called theory of hylomorphism but who defend either a neurological or a circulatory-respiratory criterion for death. We then establish which interpretation of biological phenomena is the most reasonable within the metaphysical framework of hylomorphism. In this regard, we hold that technology does not obscure the difference between life and death or confect metaphysically anomalous beings, such as living human bodies who are not organisms or animals of the human species who are informed by a vegetative soul, but instead demands a closer and more careful look at the “fuzzy area” between a healthy (living) organism and a decaying corpse. In the light of hylomorphism, we conclude that neurological and circulatory-respiratory criteria are not good instruments for diagnosing death, since they can offer only probabilistic prognoses of death. Of the two, brain death is further away from the moment of death as it merely predicts cardiac arrest that will likely result in death. Putrefaction, the criterion that Oderberg proposes, is at the opposite end of the fuzzy area. This is undoubtedly a true diagnosis of death, but it is not necessary to wait for putrefaction proper—a relatively late stage of decomposition—to be sure that death has already occurred. Rather, early cadaveric phenomena demonstrate that the matter composing a body is subject to the basic forces governing all matter in its environment and has thus succumbed to the universal current of entropy, meaning that the entropy-resisting activity has ceased to constitute an organismal unity. When this unity is lost, there is no possibility of return.

本文旨在确定是否有必要像大卫奥德伯格在最近的一篇论文中所做的那样，将腐败的极端情况作为诊断人类有机体死亡的唯一明确标志。为此，我们将奥德伯格的主张与其他与他一致支持所谓的hylomorphism 理论但捍卫神经学或循环呼吸系统死亡标准的作者的主张进行了比较。然后我们确定在hylomorphism的形而上学框架内对生物现象的哪种解释是最合理的。在这方面，我们认为技术不会掩盖生与死的区别，也不会塑造形而上学上的异常存在，例如不是人类生物体或动物的活人身体，而是通过植物灵魂获得信息，而是要求更仔细、更仔细地观察健康（活的）有机体和腐烂的尸体之间的“模糊区域”。根据hylomorphism，我们得出结论，神经系统和循环呼吸系统标准不是诊断死亡的好工具，因为它们只能提供死亡的概率预测。在这两者中，脑死亡离死亡时间更远，因为它只是预测可能导致死亡的心脏骤停。腐败，奥德伯格提出的标准，位于模糊区域的另一端。这无疑是对死亡的真正诊断，但不必等到完全腐烂——腐烂的相对较晚的阶段——才能确定死亡已经发生。相当，早期的尸体现象表明，构成身体的物质受制于支配其环境中所有物质的基本力，从而屈服于普遍的熵流，这意味着抗熵活动已不再构成有机体的统一体。这种团结一旦失去，就没有回归的可能。