This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Brain death.
|
Right now, this article has a tautology: "permanent" cessation of EEG activity is not reversible: well, that's true by definition.
Question: can brain electrical activity ever cease reversibly? What about deep anaesthesia, or hypothermia? The Anome
I revised the page fairly extensively, no offense intended. I am a practicing transplant surgeon and know quite a lot about the topic. The key point I would like to make is that brain dead individuals not only have lack of brain function, they have actual necrosis (death) of all brain tissue. Thus, profoundly hypothermic people can have flat EEGs but are not brain dead, at least as clinicians use the term. Assessing cerebral blood flow with radionuclide scanning (or, historically, arteriography) is extremely useful and eliminates any uncertainty about whether recovery is possible.
Another important point is that anyone with a neurologic injury severe enough to have any question of being brain dead has a negligible chance of meaningful recovery, even if they still have some respirations or other brain stem function. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.202.124.223 ( talk) 19:16, 31 March 2004
While it is true that flat EEG's can occur in situations where the individual is not "brain dead", it is not correct to say that brain dead individuals have necrosis of all brain tissue. For one thing, brain death can often be determined within 24 hours of whatever event caused the brain death, and that is too soon for necrosis of the entire brain to have ocurred. The important thing to remember is that brain death criteria are present to determine both the complete and irreversible loss of entire brain function. Things like hypothermia and drug intoxication may cause loss of entire brain function for example, but the loss of brain function in these instances is potentially reversible so is not equivalent to brain death. Necrosis has never been a criterion for determining brain death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsyme ( talk • contribs) 21:42, 6 December 2005
Another ambiguity is the use of the term "brain dead individual." If someone is brain dead they are legally dead. Once a person dies they are then a corpse and no longer an individual. This is not a trivial matter as the entire concept of brain death does not at all address the issue of what it means to be alive or dead, but is just a list of criterion to determine irreversible loss of entire brain function. It is clear to me that society has not accepted the concept of brain death as equivalent to dead because of the use of phrases such as this one.
This article needs a complete rewrite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsyme ( talk • contribs) 21:48, 6 December 2005
Adjective or noun...? 67.183.243.198 ( talk) 07:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
My little cousin was involved in a serious motorbike crash and was rushed to the hospital straight after the acccident. They saved his life although he has lost his eyesight and sense of smell. He was concious and abled to communicate with us by kicking his legs. We were told that his chance of surviving was good as he was only young. He was 18 at the time. Sadly, 11 days after the accident, he was pronouned brain dead. The doctors kept him breathing and his heart beat for another day so family members from abroad could come and see him for the last time. We all watched his heart beat dropped to zero by his bedside.
I am so confused and curious... my understanding was that his brain was functioning when he was at hospital, what has changed? What has made his brain decided to stop working? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.79.23.105 ( talk) 12:42, 20 April 2006
-A reply- Without knowing the exact circumstances of the case it is difficult to be specific, however, brain death (or brain stem death) can be caused by a whole variety of things, including trauma, bleeding into the brain or brainstem, infection or lack of oxygen/blood supply to the brain or brainstem. I appreciate that he was conscious and communicative for some days before his death, but some of the above factors can cause brain death even weeks after the original accident. If you really want to find out more I suggest you speak to the doctor(s) caring for your cousin, they are usually very approachable and understanding. I am sorry for your loss. Mmoneypenny 21:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
-reply- You mention that "the doctors kept him breathing". Does this mean the doctors put your brother on a life support system? I am imagining that the doctors "pulled the plug" in this scenario. Can you please clarify that statement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.139.207 ( talk) 10:16, 25 July 2007
In earlier times cessation of respiration and heartbeat used to tell dead or not and a common man could determine that too. Now with science all of this support the various definitions of death make it almost impossible to conclude whether the LIFE is there or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.7.132.72 ( talk) 07:00, 29 August 2006
Wow, yeah we need a springclean here. Now if only I can find some time... I'll come back end of December and see if I can't lend a hand. Mmoneypenny 21:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
This paragraph could be confusing to the lay-person: "Note that brain electrical activity can stop completely, or apparently completely (a "flat EEG") for some time in deep anaesthesia or during cardiac arrest before being restored. Brain death refers only to the permanent cessation of electrical activity. Numerous people who have experienced such "flat line" experiences have reported near-death experiences, the nature of which is controversial."
The typical use of "flat-line" refers to the ECG or the lectrical activity of the heart not the brain (EEG). In the vast majority of anaesthetic cases one monitors the heart and not the brain.
Also, in the ICU I work in the diagnosis frequently goes to a 4 vessel cerebral angiogram to make fully sure that there is an absense of flow. This is the "gold standard" of brain death. Frequently a person which such massive injuries as to cause brain death will have multiple cranial nerve palsies which makes cranial nerve testing unreliable.
One final thought - I think it should be made more obvious that pronouncing a patient "brain dead" is only required to allow for legal organ donation. If donation is not an option then life-support can be withdrawn without confirming brain death if the hope of any meaningful recovery is lost.
Sorry I have no idea how to edit this myself! 220.245.182.82 11:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)Jamie
Could the next competent medic (preferably British or with an understanding of the British criteria) to check this page please have a look at the Brain Stem Death page too. At the moment, half of it still reads like a rant from the "cardiovascular death only" lobby. 11:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tharyps ( talk • contribs)
Critics of the notion of brain death have sometimes argued that it could be invalidated by the futuristic existence of artificial brains, given that death in its broadest definition involves the entire body and that it happens on the cellular level, and not on any peculiar mnemonic level. Hence, if your brain unexpectedly dies, it might be replaced by one of these organic computer brains that would maintain your previous state of psychological consciousness, as one would store information on a computer disk. ADM ( talk) 07:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
This article needs to include criticism of the "brain death" criteria and discussion of alternative criteria for death. One prominent author here is Dr. Alan Shewmon. Also, in the religious section, I'm reading about "the lord Buddha" and just imagining the outcry if someone wrote "the lord Jesus Christ" in a Wikipedia article, so I've removed "lord" and cleaned up those sentences a bit. JKeck ( talk) 01:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
This page currently uses both "brain dead" and "brain-dead". Which is more correct, and if neither, can we standardize. Zargulon ( talk) 16:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia cited: In spite of Wikipedia's willingness to deny itself as credible.
Wikipedi was used as a resource to define 'Brain Death' or 'Brain-Dead'
to competent medical and civil authorities.
'Brain Death' or being 'Brain-Dead' is specifically:
Necrotic tissue or dead tissue within the brain.
Tissue which cannot support life.
The lack of detectable brain electrical activity did not support Brain Death alone. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
108.89.36.16 (
talk)
19:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
The section on religious views is a discussion on religious views with respect to organ donation, not brain death. I think this section needs to be re-worked to add religious views on brain death and remove the organ transplantation discussion but I don't really have the knowledge to make this change. Also, I'm a newbie and while I know I should be bold in my edits, I'm reluctant to make such a big change on a section that's been around this long. Ca2james ( talk) 17:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
24.0.133.234, why did you remove the sentence, "Most organ donation for organ transplantation is done in the setting of brain death."? Ca2james ( talk) 02:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
In the same vein, 24.0.133.234, re your edit note: "this is true. Please stop deleting everything that is not cited-just tag it if you must." - No, I will not just take your word that something is "true" if a) there is no citation or b) your edit is not borne out by the cited reference(s). Stop making unsourced claims. This is an encyclopedia, not your personal soapbox. Funcrunch ( talk) 06:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Why is there a section on Organ Donation (and religious views on organ donation) in this article? Seems like it would maybe be better to simply have link to the Organ Donation WP and discuss such issues over there -- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 05:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
The psychological confusion text was definitely not WP:NPOV. Regardless, the subject matter doesn't belong here at all as this is a discussion of brain death and (nominally) organ donation, not the psychology of choice, and is therefore WP:COATRACK. Ca2james ( talk) 19:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I have no issue with removing the Organ donation section but I don't think that it should then be mentioned in the lede, which is supposed to be a summary of the article. I dont know where the material should go but it isn't the lede. Note that I also disagree with the wording (does the dead donor law really need to be mentioned in an article on Brain death?) but I'd rather see it find a good home before discussing how it could best be changed. Ca2james ( talk) 00:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I added a little more, but why was this deleted in the 1st place. Deletion undone pending discussion here please. Is it always mandatory to included cite? A tag would save content better imo. This was my edit to the article on January 17 and about a month later it was removed here---> http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Brain_death&diff=next&oldid=594468749 24.0.133.234 ( talk) 16:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
A blog entry is NOT a reliable source for an encyclopedia and is not an appropriate source for further reading. 24.0.133.234, when brain death occurs, cardiac death follows whether organ are removed or not. The fact that cardiac death occurs after organ transplantation is irrelevant to the article, does not clarify the concept of organ transplantation (which should be a summary of the main article), and does not belong here. Ca2james ( talk) 03:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
According to WP:NEWSBLOG, "these may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process." This is a news blog written by a psychologist, not a professional with respect to brain death. This article might be interesting but not every interesting article or fact belongs on Wikipedia.
Do you have reliable sources for your statements about date of death, cause of death, and brain death? Ca2james ( talk) 02:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
The legal time of death is the date and time that doctors determine that all brain activity has ceased. This is the time that is noted on the patient’s death certificate." http://www.donorrecovery.org/learn/understanding-brain-death/----I may have added this from my tablet but still I should have been able to find it. I don't know what happened there 24.0.133.234 ( talk) 10:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Looking through the external links, it seems that most do not comply with WP:EXT. There's the link to a list of documents in German, something from the pontiff's office, a link to an essay written for a textbook located online, and others. I'm not sure these links are encyclopaedic enough to be included and propose replacing them with better links.... Except I'm not sure where to find good ones. Should we just delete the section until we find good external links?
Related to this subject are the four bulletted references in the notes section. Since they are not used in the text I don't think they belong there. If they belong anywhere, it's in external links but again I not sure they're encyclopaedic enough. Thoughts? Ca2james ( talk) 19:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I've removed the external links. There's nothing in them that fits the purpose of the section that cannot be in the article instead per WP:ELYES. Here they are in case editors want to look over them for potential sources etc.: -- Ronz ( talk) 18:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
As far as the unlinked references go, all were added without any corresponding changes to content or other indication of use, with the exception of Karasawa which was added here. I've removed all except Karasawa, which I've linked to the corresponding content. -- Ronz ( talk) 18:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
The entire section pertains to religious views on organ donation. Even the sub-heading of the section says that. I think it should go or be re-written. There are religious views on brain death but I don't want to go there myself/too complicated. 24.0.133.234 ( talk) 02:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
24.0.133.234, why did you make ? What do you think is false about this statement: "If a brain-dead individual is not an organ donor or consent is not given by the legal next of kin, ventilator and drug support is discontinued, circulation stops, and the organs cease to function."? Your edit summary said something about the US but the statement is a general, logical, medical conclusion to what happens if someone isn't a donor. What is your contrary evidence that this statement is not true? Ca2james ( talk) 02:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Seems like it might be a bit undue as presented, but it definitely belongs judging by the sources and content, both here and at Organ donation.
The section here could be improved to better summarize the issues, given that the details should be in (and are in) Organ donation.
Is the brief sentence in the lede a good summary? -- Ronz ( talk) 18:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
24.0.133.234 ( talk) 23:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree with those changes and I agree that the DNR stuff doesn't belong on this article. Do you want to make the changes? Ca2james ( talk) 00:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Is there anyone credible who believes that absolute brain death isn't synonymous with death? There have been people who turned around from this condition, as is mentioned in the article, but I think the very notion is discouraged in the public. Such views are linked with extremism, families desperately hoping against hope, and links to the anti-euthanasia movement. But is there anyone with theories about people returning from 'brain dead' state, or otherwise innovative or explanative thoughts on the problems associated with this concept? -- IronMaidenRocks ( talk) 12:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Bibliography:
Wijdicks, Eelco F.M. "Evidence-based Guideline Update: Determining Brain Death in Adults." Evidence-based Guideline Update: Determining Brain Death in Adults. American Academy of Neurology, 8 June 2010. Web. 22 Feb. 2016.
Busser, Jonathan. "Ectopic Cell Cycle Proteins Predict the Sites of Neuronal Cell Death in Alzheimer's Disease Brain." Ectopic Cell Cycle Proteins Predict the Sites of Neuronal Cell Death in Alzheimer's Disease Brain. The Journal of Neuroscience, 15 Apr. 1998. Web. 22 Feb. 2016.
Laureys, Steven. "THE NEUROLOGY OF CONSCIOUSNESS." Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuropathology. Elsevier, 2009. Web. 22 Feb. 2016.
Xue, Mengzhou. "Intracortical Hemorrhage Injury in Rats." Intracortical Hemorrhage Injury in Rats. Stroke, July 2000. Web. 22 Feb. 2016.
Erin, Charles A. "An Ethical Market in Human Organs." An Ethical Market in Human Organs. JME, 17 Mar. 2003. Web. 23 Feb. 2016.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Brain death. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Now that the Jahi McMath case is back in the news, I think a mention of the New Jersey Declaration of Death Act ( https://muse.jhu.edu/article/245624) is useful. However I don't know how to present it in context of other states' viewpoints, so someone more versed in these topics should add it in. Wqwt ( talk) 19:19, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Brain death.
|
Right now, this article has a tautology: "permanent" cessation of EEG activity is not reversible: well, that's true by definition.
Question: can brain electrical activity ever cease reversibly? What about deep anaesthesia, or hypothermia? The Anome
I revised the page fairly extensively, no offense intended. I am a practicing transplant surgeon and know quite a lot about the topic. The key point I would like to make is that brain dead individuals not only have lack of brain function, they have actual necrosis (death) of all brain tissue. Thus, profoundly hypothermic people can have flat EEGs but are not brain dead, at least as clinicians use the term. Assessing cerebral blood flow with radionuclide scanning (or, historically, arteriography) is extremely useful and eliminates any uncertainty about whether recovery is possible.
Another important point is that anyone with a neurologic injury severe enough to have any question of being brain dead has a negligible chance of meaningful recovery, even if they still have some respirations or other brain stem function. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.202.124.223 ( talk) 19:16, 31 March 2004
While it is true that flat EEG's can occur in situations where the individual is not "brain dead", it is not correct to say that brain dead individuals have necrosis of all brain tissue. For one thing, brain death can often be determined within 24 hours of whatever event caused the brain death, and that is too soon for necrosis of the entire brain to have ocurred. The important thing to remember is that brain death criteria are present to determine both the complete and irreversible loss of entire brain function. Things like hypothermia and drug intoxication may cause loss of entire brain function for example, but the loss of brain function in these instances is potentially reversible so is not equivalent to brain death. Necrosis has never been a criterion for determining brain death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsyme ( talk • contribs) 21:42, 6 December 2005
Another ambiguity is the use of the term "brain dead individual." If someone is brain dead they are legally dead. Once a person dies they are then a corpse and no longer an individual. This is not a trivial matter as the entire concept of brain death does not at all address the issue of what it means to be alive or dead, but is just a list of criterion to determine irreversible loss of entire brain function. It is clear to me that society has not accepted the concept of brain death as equivalent to dead because of the use of phrases such as this one.
This article needs a complete rewrite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsyme ( talk • contribs) 21:48, 6 December 2005
Adjective or noun...? 67.183.243.198 ( talk) 07:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
My little cousin was involved in a serious motorbike crash and was rushed to the hospital straight after the acccident. They saved his life although he has lost his eyesight and sense of smell. He was concious and abled to communicate with us by kicking his legs. We were told that his chance of surviving was good as he was only young. He was 18 at the time. Sadly, 11 days after the accident, he was pronouned brain dead. The doctors kept him breathing and his heart beat for another day so family members from abroad could come and see him for the last time. We all watched his heart beat dropped to zero by his bedside.
I am so confused and curious... my understanding was that his brain was functioning when he was at hospital, what has changed? What has made his brain decided to stop working? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.79.23.105 ( talk) 12:42, 20 April 2006
-A reply- Without knowing the exact circumstances of the case it is difficult to be specific, however, brain death (or brain stem death) can be caused by a whole variety of things, including trauma, bleeding into the brain or brainstem, infection or lack of oxygen/blood supply to the brain or brainstem. I appreciate that he was conscious and communicative for some days before his death, but some of the above factors can cause brain death even weeks after the original accident. If you really want to find out more I suggest you speak to the doctor(s) caring for your cousin, they are usually very approachable and understanding. I am sorry for your loss. Mmoneypenny 21:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
-reply- You mention that "the doctors kept him breathing". Does this mean the doctors put your brother on a life support system? I am imagining that the doctors "pulled the plug" in this scenario. Can you please clarify that statement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.139.207 ( talk) 10:16, 25 July 2007
In earlier times cessation of respiration and heartbeat used to tell dead or not and a common man could determine that too. Now with science all of this support the various definitions of death make it almost impossible to conclude whether the LIFE is there or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.7.132.72 ( talk) 07:00, 29 August 2006
Wow, yeah we need a springclean here. Now if only I can find some time... I'll come back end of December and see if I can't lend a hand. Mmoneypenny 21:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
This paragraph could be confusing to the lay-person: "Note that brain electrical activity can stop completely, or apparently completely (a "flat EEG") for some time in deep anaesthesia or during cardiac arrest before being restored. Brain death refers only to the permanent cessation of electrical activity. Numerous people who have experienced such "flat line" experiences have reported near-death experiences, the nature of which is controversial."
The typical use of "flat-line" refers to the ECG or the lectrical activity of the heart not the brain (EEG). In the vast majority of anaesthetic cases one monitors the heart and not the brain.
Also, in the ICU I work in the diagnosis frequently goes to a 4 vessel cerebral angiogram to make fully sure that there is an absense of flow. This is the "gold standard" of brain death. Frequently a person which such massive injuries as to cause brain death will have multiple cranial nerve palsies which makes cranial nerve testing unreliable.
One final thought - I think it should be made more obvious that pronouncing a patient "brain dead" is only required to allow for legal organ donation. If donation is not an option then life-support can be withdrawn without confirming brain death if the hope of any meaningful recovery is lost.
Sorry I have no idea how to edit this myself! 220.245.182.82 11:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)Jamie
Could the next competent medic (preferably British or with an understanding of the British criteria) to check this page please have a look at the Brain Stem Death page too. At the moment, half of it still reads like a rant from the "cardiovascular death only" lobby. 11:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tharyps ( talk • contribs)
Critics of the notion of brain death have sometimes argued that it could be invalidated by the futuristic existence of artificial brains, given that death in its broadest definition involves the entire body and that it happens on the cellular level, and not on any peculiar mnemonic level. Hence, if your brain unexpectedly dies, it might be replaced by one of these organic computer brains that would maintain your previous state of psychological consciousness, as one would store information on a computer disk. ADM ( talk) 07:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
This article needs to include criticism of the "brain death" criteria and discussion of alternative criteria for death. One prominent author here is Dr. Alan Shewmon. Also, in the religious section, I'm reading about "the lord Buddha" and just imagining the outcry if someone wrote "the lord Jesus Christ" in a Wikipedia article, so I've removed "lord" and cleaned up those sentences a bit. JKeck ( talk) 01:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
This page currently uses both "brain dead" and "brain-dead". Which is more correct, and if neither, can we standardize. Zargulon ( talk) 16:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia cited: In spite of Wikipedia's willingness to deny itself as credible.
Wikipedi was used as a resource to define 'Brain Death' or 'Brain-Dead'
to competent medical and civil authorities.
'Brain Death' or being 'Brain-Dead' is specifically:
Necrotic tissue or dead tissue within the brain.
Tissue which cannot support life.
The lack of detectable brain electrical activity did not support Brain Death alone. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
108.89.36.16 (
talk)
19:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
The section on religious views is a discussion on religious views with respect to organ donation, not brain death. I think this section needs to be re-worked to add religious views on brain death and remove the organ transplantation discussion but I don't really have the knowledge to make this change. Also, I'm a newbie and while I know I should be bold in my edits, I'm reluctant to make such a big change on a section that's been around this long. Ca2james ( talk) 17:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
24.0.133.234, why did you remove the sentence, "Most organ donation for organ transplantation is done in the setting of brain death."? Ca2james ( talk) 02:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
In the same vein, 24.0.133.234, re your edit note: "this is true. Please stop deleting everything that is not cited-just tag it if you must." - No, I will not just take your word that something is "true" if a) there is no citation or b) your edit is not borne out by the cited reference(s). Stop making unsourced claims. This is an encyclopedia, not your personal soapbox. Funcrunch ( talk) 06:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Why is there a section on Organ Donation (and religious views on organ donation) in this article? Seems like it would maybe be better to simply have link to the Organ Donation WP and discuss such issues over there -- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 05:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
The psychological confusion text was definitely not WP:NPOV. Regardless, the subject matter doesn't belong here at all as this is a discussion of brain death and (nominally) organ donation, not the psychology of choice, and is therefore WP:COATRACK. Ca2james ( talk) 19:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I have no issue with removing the Organ donation section but I don't think that it should then be mentioned in the lede, which is supposed to be a summary of the article. I dont know where the material should go but it isn't the lede. Note that I also disagree with the wording (does the dead donor law really need to be mentioned in an article on Brain death?) but I'd rather see it find a good home before discussing how it could best be changed. Ca2james ( talk) 00:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I added a little more, but why was this deleted in the 1st place. Deletion undone pending discussion here please. Is it always mandatory to included cite? A tag would save content better imo. This was my edit to the article on January 17 and about a month later it was removed here---> http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Brain_death&diff=next&oldid=594468749 24.0.133.234 ( talk) 16:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
A blog entry is NOT a reliable source for an encyclopedia and is not an appropriate source for further reading. 24.0.133.234, when brain death occurs, cardiac death follows whether organ are removed or not. The fact that cardiac death occurs after organ transplantation is irrelevant to the article, does not clarify the concept of organ transplantation (which should be a summary of the main article), and does not belong here. Ca2james ( talk) 03:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
According to WP:NEWSBLOG, "these may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process." This is a news blog written by a psychologist, not a professional with respect to brain death. This article might be interesting but not every interesting article or fact belongs on Wikipedia.
Do you have reliable sources for your statements about date of death, cause of death, and brain death? Ca2james ( talk) 02:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
The legal time of death is the date and time that doctors determine that all brain activity has ceased. This is the time that is noted on the patient’s death certificate." http://www.donorrecovery.org/learn/understanding-brain-death/----I may have added this from my tablet but still I should have been able to find it. I don't know what happened there 24.0.133.234 ( talk) 10:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Looking through the external links, it seems that most do not comply with WP:EXT. There's the link to a list of documents in German, something from the pontiff's office, a link to an essay written for a textbook located online, and others. I'm not sure these links are encyclopaedic enough to be included and propose replacing them with better links.... Except I'm not sure where to find good ones. Should we just delete the section until we find good external links?
Related to this subject are the four bulletted references in the notes section. Since they are not used in the text I don't think they belong there. If they belong anywhere, it's in external links but again I not sure they're encyclopaedic enough. Thoughts? Ca2james ( talk) 19:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I've removed the external links. There's nothing in them that fits the purpose of the section that cannot be in the article instead per WP:ELYES. Here they are in case editors want to look over them for potential sources etc.: -- Ronz ( talk) 18:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
As far as the unlinked references go, all were added without any corresponding changes to content or other indication of use, with the exception of Karasawa which was added here. I've removed all except Karasawa, which I've linked to the corresponding content. -- Ronz ( talk) 18:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
The entire section pertains to religious views on organ donation. Even the sub-heading of the section says that. I think it should go or be re-written. There are religious views on brain death but I don't want to go there myself/too complicated. 24.0.133.234 ( talk) 02:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
24.0.133.234, why did you make ? What do you think is false about this statement: "If a brain-dead individual is not an organ donor or consent is not given by the legal next of kin, ventilator and drug support is discontinued, circulation stops, and the organs cease to function."? Your edit summary said something about the US but the statement is a general, logical, medical conclusion to what happens if someone isn't a donor. What is your contrary evidence that this statement is not true? Ca2james ( talk) 02:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Seems like it might be a bit undue as presented, but it definitely belongs judging by the sources and content, both here and at Organ donation.
The section here could be improved to better summarize the issues, given that the details should be in (and are in) Organ donation.
Is the brief sentence in the lede a good summary? -- Ronz ( talk) 18:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
24.0.133.234 ( talk) 23:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree with those changes and I agree that the DNR stuff doesn't belong on this article. Do you want to make the changes? Ca2james ( talk) 00:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Is there anyone credible who believes that absolute brain death isn't synonymous with death? There have been people who turned around from this condition, as is mentioned in the article, but I think the very notion is discouraged in the public. Such views are linked with extremism, families desperately hoping against hope, and links to the anti-euthanasia movement. But is there anyone with theories about people returning from 'brain dead' state, or otherwise innovative or explanative thoughts on the problems associated with this concept? -- IronMaidenRocks ( talk) 12:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Bibliography:
Wijdicks, Eelco F.M. "Evidence-based Guideline Update: Determining Brain Death in Adults." Evidence-based Guideline Update: Determining Brain Death in Adults. American Academy of Neurology, 8 June 2010. Web. 22 Feb. 2016.
Busser, Jonathan. "Ectopic Cell Cycle Proteins Predict the Sites of Neuronal Cell Death in Alzheimer's Disease Brain." Ectopic Cell Cycle Proteins Predict the Sites of Neuronal Cell Death in Alzheimer's Disease Brain. The Journal of Neuroscience, 15 Apr. 1998. Web. 22 Feb. 2016.
Laureys, Steven. "THE NEUROLOGY OF CONSCIOUSNESS." Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuropathology. Elsevier, 2009. Web. 22 Feb. 2016.
Xue, Mengzhou. "Intracortical Hemorrhage Injury in Rats." Intracortical Hemorrhage Injury in Rats. Stroke, July 2000. Web. 22 Feb. 2016.
Erin, Charles A. "An Ethical Market in Human Organs." An Ethical Market in Human Organs. JME, 17 Mar. 2003. Web. 23 Feb. 2016.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Brain death. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Now that the Jahi McMath case is back in the news, I think a mention of the New Jersey Declaration of Death Act ( https://muse.jhu.edu/article/245624) is useful. However I don't know how to present it in context of other states' viewpoints, so someone more versed in these topics should add it in. Wqwt ( talk) 19:19, 29 June 2018 (UTC)