In recent years, due to the great progress of modern medicine and various breakthroughs in human physiology research, even if patients have no brain or brain stem to transmit pulses, medical staff can artificially maintain the activity of their tissues. With the continuous development of medicine, more and more patients will rely on the respiratory support system to maintain their lives-artificially maintaining body temperature, blood pressure, pulse, nutrition and infusion, but the brains of these patients are inactive (dead). Brain-dead patients have no hope of recovery or survival.

Only in medicine do we come into contact with the cold fact that there are still different death standards. People are helpless about death itself; But the standard of death is a fucked hand, which is really a sad irony. Because the standard of death is manipulated by human hands, it has certain subjective value. In a sense, everyone's discussion and the setting of death standards are to decide whether a person who is not "present" is dead or alive at the same time. This is a very ethical matter, not just an objective standard of a specialized industry. In fact, judging from the experts who are speaking now, most of those who support brain death come from the medical field, while those who are cautious about it are lawyers. This can be roughly regarded as a confrontation between two interest groups, because a real idiot can never be "present" and can only be represented by a lawyer.

"Brain death" is an expert problem, but when it comes to value, it is a public problem. It is hard for me to accept the values that people's values are regarded as labor and hospitals as "repair labor". In my opinion, from the expert's point of view, treating the hospital to heal the wounded and rescue the dying as "repairing the labor force" is actually more unacceptable than other medical experts treating the organs of brain-dead people as medical resources that need to be developed urgently. Although the latter's calmness is almost cold, he still talks about "the use of materials" from a professional standpoint. The former, on the other hand, talks about the narrow definition of human value outside the scope of medicine. That's not how people define life. People live not only for "labor". To regard the value of human life only as the value of labor force is to "materialize" people.

Human life has absolute value, ethical value, emotional value and enjoyment value. It is not defined by medicine, nor by the Ministry of Labor, nor by money. In my opinion, the legislation and discussion of brain death are all possible, but it is best not to involve the value of life, especially not to cause a narrow understanding of the value of life. When we talk about death, we can't hurt the dignity of life.