{
  "abstract": "Death used to be a package deal: heart, lungs and brain all stopped together, so there was no need to ask which particular stoppage constituted death. Modern intensive care, however, starting with mechanical ventilation, prised the components apart. This forced medicine to decide which cessation mattered most for specific purposes such as organ donation.1 We propose that authorship may be undergoing a similar disaggregation, likewise driven by technological innovation.",
  "authors": [
    {
      "affiliations": [
        "Centre for Biomedical Ethics, National University of Singapore Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, Singapore"
      ],
      "name": "Brian D Earp"
    },
    {
      "affiliations": [
        "Centre for Biomedical Ethics, National University of Singapore Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, Singapore",
        "Center for Advanced Studies in Bioscience Innovation Law, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark"
      ],
      "name": "Sebastian Porsdam Mann"
    },
    {
      "affiliations": [
        "Hiroshima University, Higashihiroshima, Hiroshima Prefecture, Japan"
      ],
      "name": "Tsutomu Sawai"
    },
    {
      "affiliations": [
        "Institute for Biomedical Ethics, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland"
      ],
      "name": "Tenzin Wangmo"
    }
  ],
  "title": "Death, authorship and generative AI: a call for commentaries",
  "uid": "5fe5f4c3-748f-5bfc-96d9-ffb0bd6e0915"
}