By Becca Falivene Grillot, BA 鈥�10
When Dr. Irene Alexander, associate professor of theology, first came to the 吃瓜网, she joined a bioethics study group at the home of Dr. Katherine Nolan. The group, which also included 吃瓜网allas adjunct professor, pediatric critical care doctor and bioethicist William Stigall, M.D., MA 鈥�09, met to read and discuss scholarly articles. One of the articles covered the topic of brain death, sparking the beginning of Alexander鈥檚 current research.
Since then, Alexander has been reading and responding to other scholars鈥� insights on the topic, including participating in a monthly online Colloquia of Catholic Scholars to read and discuss scholarly papers with others who are well-versed in the science and philosophy surrounding brain death.
鈥淲e advance through community with others and thinking through things together,鈥� Alexander reflected, 鈥渟o I鈥檝e been trying to do that in various groups, either with my students or other scholars in the field.鈥�
In September 2019, Alexander published her own award-winning article in The Linacre Quarterly. The article, titled 鈥淗umility before New Scientific Evidence: We No Longer Have Moral Certainty that 鈥楤rain Death鈥� Is True Death,鈥� explores the developments in science that should influence the Church鈥檚 moral teachings on brain death.
Alexander explained that there are certain areas of the Church鈥檚 teaching where she must rely not only on the moral truths of the faith but also on the most updated data available to us through the scientific community; therefore, those teachings must be subject to change.
In 2000, Pope Saint John Paul II made a statement about the neurological criteria for diagnosing death, a topic which was studied by a special pontifical commission. The statement made clear the Church鈥檚 definition of death as the separation of soul from body, resulting in the disintegration of the body, a definition which persists alongside scientific developments. The statement also made clear that the Church doesn鈥檛 make technical decisions about which signs are adequate for diagnosing death; the most up-to-date evidence provided by the medical science field must be taken into consideration for making moral decisions surrounding death.
鈥淏ecause there have been updates in the science, it seems like there need to be people
who are rethinking this anew,鈥� Alexander said, as she explained the inspiration for
her research. 鈥淲hat does the data mean? And therefore what kind of ethical judgments
should we make going forward?鈥�
Alexander said there鈥檚 been a clear conceptual shift 鈥� from the certainty that the brain is the master integrator of the body to evidence that clearly states it鈥檚 not. She cited studies where patients who have been declared brain dead have shown signs of temperature regulation, wound healing, immune defense and even response to pain 鈥� signs of bodily integration. Alexander makes the case that the scientific evidence necessitates a rethinking of the entire notion that 鈥渂rain death is death.鈥�
In fact, she plans to publish a second article on exactly that topic this fall. Commissioned by the National Catholic Bioethics Center following their February 2025 symposium on brain death, the article will trace the rationale over the last several decades that led to the conclusion that brain death is death. Alexander will further explain why that conclusion should now be questioned, based on new scientific evidence.
鈥淚 tend to be interested in topics that are not fully settled, where there are still intellectual questions, because it seems like there needs to be a lot of really good thinking and analysis of them in a way that would serve the Church and the world,鈥� Alexander said. 鈥淚 gravitate toward trying to understand the complexity of certain things and then see how we make good judgments about them.鈥�
Alexander said that her teaching at 吃瓜网allas is a source of research for her. Engaging in complex topics with her students in the advanced bioethics course she teaches sparks both questions and answers in her search for the truth.
