<p>This manuscript reconceives debates about life and death by integrating conceptual clarification, methodological innovation, comparative exegesis, and an actionable empirical-normative protocol. Motivated by persistent clinical, legal, and cross-cultural conflicts; most visibly in controversies over brain-death determinations and organ procurement, this paper advances two interlocking contributions. The first is a clarified and operationalized theoretical instrument: The Three-Sense Taxonomy (physiological, organismal, social/interest-based), reworked as a policy-ready diagnostic tool with explicit indicators, institutional consequences, and safeguards. The second is a novel methodological innovation, the Integrative Deliberative Empirical-Normative (IDEN) framework which prescribes how mixed empirical methods, structured public deliberation, and explicit normative synthesis should be combined to generate legitimate and implementable policy in plural societies. After a focused literature review drawing on contemporary clinical guidelines, empirical studies of relatives’ dilemmas, and comparative philosophical sources, the paper applies the taxonomy and IDEN to three case studies: brain death and transplantation in Western medicine, familial decision-making in Confucian contexts, and soteriological considerations in Indian contexts (Advaita Vedānta and Buddhist frameworks). Each case demonstrates how conceptual ambiguity and institutional opacity produce moral harms, and how IDEN-guided pilots can produce transparent, defensible compromises (an organismal legal default plus bounded, deliberatively ratified accommodations). The paper concludes with detailed pilot designs, evaluation metrics, ethical safeguards, and a research agenda. It argues that conceptual rigor without democratic legitimacy is brittle, and legitimacy without conceptual clarity is muddled; the IDEN framework seeks the necessary marriage of the two.</p>