![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I attempted to integrate some of the information regarding Dr. Bryne previously added by 24.0.133.234 and also mentioned by Ca2james in talk. I think this edit could use a stronger ref for the statement that brain death is legal death in all 50 states. Currently, it’s only referenced by an article in the popular press regarding the McMath & Munoz cases, but I suspect there are much stronger references for this from legal sources, etc.-- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 22:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I have to make an objection the the resources used in this paragraph and even the content. Using British medical journals which was apparent by the spelling of the word, "defences" in the title of one said ref., We are going waaaaaaay beyond the Jahi McMath case. Dr Bryne, objection to Dr. Bryne, yes. That is part of the case, but using foreign medical references takes this too far-off the topic and does not even apply to the same criteria that is used, (UDDA) in the US where the McMath case is. Foreign definitions and foreign references may have a place somewhere in this article, but not as it applies to the Jahi McMath case content.The British do not use the same criteria to determine irreversible brain death as we do here anyways so it cannot be used to apply to this case can it? 24.0.133.234 ( talk) 00:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I think I've got it now. Judge Grillo (State court) issued a temporary restraining order on December 20. On December 23, there was a hearing where Grillo listened to both sides and then appointed Dr. Fisher as the independent expert assigned to evaluate the state of Jahi's brain. I think that the family also requested that Dr. Byrne examine her during that hearing. I can't find records of the hearing itself; only records of the results of the hearing (which do not mention him) are available, as well as news reports saying that the family wanted Dr. Byrne to examine Jahi. The next day (December 24), Dr. Fisher presented his findings to the court. The hospital also filed a document opposing Dr. Byrne as examiner. Judge Grillo then extended the restraining order for a week and did not mention Dr. Byrne. Later, on January 2, the family filed with the Federal court to have tubes put into Jahi. Part of that filing was a statement by Dr. Byrne [5]. This filing was later rendered moot after the settlement conference was concluded [6]. Ca2james ( talk) 19:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
To correct the timeline, the hospital's opposition to Dr. Byrne was filed in in U.S. District Court, well after the Dec. 24 ruling, and it would therefore be anachronistic to use that opposition to discuss the motion filed on Dec. 23. So I've used other sources to describe Byrne's point of view. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 23:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Also, as per this appeal document filed by McMath's family's attorneys, the trial court judge explicitly declined the request to have Byrne conduct an examination. See Page 4. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 00:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with the inclusion of Dr Byrne's statement about the ventilator not working on a dead body. He is not named in court rulings and is a supporting character in this drama. Therefore, his opinions are just bystander opinions, of no more direct relevance than Bob the Builder's would be. When included in the article with Dr Fisher's court-requested comments, his opinions are given equal weight which is
WP:UNDUE, even when they're qualified by the statement that he didnt examine her. I'm fine leaving the preceding statement in but that quote needs to go.
Ca2james (
talk)
04:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I've been doing some research into the order of the various legal motions in the various courts and the timeline for what happened. I think it might be important to note that the first few motions were just to keep the girl on the ventilator while the motions starting on December 30 were to insert the tubes required for the transfer. I'm not sure how best to include all of this info in the article (I think it's too long and convoluted for a simple bulleted timeline) so I thought I'd put out my notes for you all. I know my references aren't in the right format but I can fix that if you want.
December 9 - Surgery
December 12 - Brain death
December 16 - Family upset with hospital because hospial wants to turn off ventilator [7]
December 17 - Family lawyer issues "cease and desist" action to keep Jahi on ventilator [8], [9]
December 20 - family meets with hospital and are very unhappy [10]
December 20 - Family seeks temporary restraining order in State court, which is granted [11]
December 23 - Fisher appointed [12], [13]
December 24 - hospital opposes Dr. Byrne and and asks life support to be dismissed (Alameda County Superior Court) [14], [15] [16]
December 24 - Grillo orders Jahi kept on breathing machine (extends restraining order) after hearing hospital expert (Robin Shanahan) and independent expert (Fisher) [17] [18], [19]
December 24 - "In ruling Tuesday, the judge made no mention of the family’s desire for Dr. Paul Byrne, a pediatric professor at the University of Toledo, to examine the teen." [20]
December 26 - Family wants to transfer Jahi to another location. Sticking point is that they want tubes inserted and hospital says no [21]
December 27 - Hospital agrees that Jahi can be transferred [22], [23]. Hospital places conditions on transfer: must happen through coroner, hospital must speak with receiving facility, and hospital will not install tubes [24]
December 30 - Family files appeal (1st District Court of Appeal) to prevent disconnection of ventilator. Appeals court granted temporary stay which expires 5pm December 31 so appeals judges can review case [25]
December 30 - Family files in Federal court to equire CHO to insert ventilation and tubes [26], [27]
December 30 - Federal court defers restraining order and denies tube insertion [28], [29]
December 30 - Grillo (Alameda County superior court) extends stay to Jan 7 [30]
December 31 - Dolan applies to 1st District Court of Appeal to force hospital to insert tubes; appeal denied [31] Appeals court will not compel hospital to put in tubes; case must work its way through lower (superior) court first. Federal court says case must work through state court [32]
January 2 - Federal judge orders settlement conference [33], [34]
January 2 - Family files federal appeal to force hospital to insert tubes [35], [36], [37] - this filing includes a statement by Dr. Paul Byrne
January 3 - settlement reached. Body goes to mother, who takes responsibility for care (including cardiac); no tubes inserted [38]
January 3 - Hospital response to January 2 Federal appeal to insert tubes [39]
January 6 - Jahi transferred from CHO to undisclosed location [40]
January 6 - Federal court denies motion for tubes as moot and terminates Dec 30 motion for restraining order [41], [42]
January 8 - Jahi receives tubes [43]
January 29 - Notice of voluntary dismissal in Federal court by family [44]
Ca2james ( talk) 01:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Ummm, 24.0.133.234 ( talk),..... while I appreciate that you want to include this timeline in the article, I meant for it to be used as a starting point, not to be put in as-is! The language is nowhere near encyclopedic or necessarily neutral as these were just my notes that I thought I'd share with you all. The phrasing definitely needs to be re-worked; we can't just say that the family was upset, for example, as BoboMeowCat ( talk) pointed out. Personally, I'd rather see the timeline taken out until the language is improved but since I didn't put it in, I won't take it out. Ca2james ( talk) 17:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
We should not be giving any weight to a discussion by a person who according to the sources decided what her condition was even before seeing her, and who did not give an official evaluation to the court. This seems like coatracking an opinion into the article. Yobol ( talk) 21:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Quotations don't always add to an article. Especially in light of the fact that what Byrne says is probably a fringe opinion, we needn't give it too much presence in the article. I might suggest trimming the quotation itself, or even just summarizing his point in a few words, which is all it really needs. Be careful about relying too much on primary sources for how you shape this article as well. These include interviews, and drawing conclusions based on quotations may be a form of unpublished synthesis. Just go by what the secondary sources say. And also be careful about taking WP:FRINGE too far and applying it in such a way that WP:NPOV or WP:BLP is violated. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 09:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Folks, whatever anyone's opinion is on the situation, the fact is that the coroner issued a death certificate dated December 12, 2013. It makes sense to me to include that in the article as Jahi's death date. If we keep going back and forth on whether Jahi "is" or "was" it's going to make this page lose credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funcrunch ( talk • contribs) 16:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
By all legal standards she is deceased and has been since December 12th. Towards the best interest of factual accuracy we have no choice but to go with the legal POV until it changes. 69.246.141.209 ( talk) 19:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Legally dead but is she grammatically dead? In this case it may be necessary to just have the edit-war appear in article? is/was, date of "legal" death/ , and so on. Using "was" instead of "is" is grammatically awkward and I think incorrect. A (noun) "is"-not was. The subject of the article "is"-not was if you want the subject to agree with the context, and although the child "was" declared "legally" dead, until she has "actually" died, there are too many political overtones to this. 24.0.133.234 ( talk) 00:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if it is appropriate for this article to elaborate on exactly what legally dead but on life support, and technically dead means, but from the way that I understand it, the legal definition of "brain death", was created by Drs at Harvard in order to facilitate removing organs from a person being kept alive on machines, which in reality is what caused the death of such people. By declaring a person "legally" brain-dead, this ending of one person's life by removing their organs, (which were only being kept functioning on machines to make them available for transplant)--would not be subject to criminal, and moral objections which were brought up by family members of the donors, recipients, and members of the transplant operation. In cases like Jahi's, a diagnoses of brain-death can be used to remove or refuse life support, but there are questions and different legal, ethical, religious...views on the subject. Why is only one view being pushed on Wikipedia? (that a person being kept alive on life support after being declared brain-dead is "dead"). Wikipedia should be able to reflect the uncertainties involved with this case for the main reason that WP will likely be used as a resource for people researching this case. The article, edit-warring etc. does a disservice to WP users by refusing to acknowledge the questions that have been raised, and only providing one side to a contentious issue. Readers are aware that there are political and ethical questions here and for WP editors to get heavy-handed and maintain this "legally brain-dead" position when readers already know that it has been disputed, looks like propaganda and censorship to me. 24.0.133.234 ( talk) 02:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
The evidence is that as far as we know, her body is continuing to function with the help of life-support. If she were physically deceased, her body would die/deteriorate/decay and life-support or machines would not be able to sustain cardiac and the other functions that are apparently being assisted. This is an ongoing learning issue and it is only fair to WP users to present the correct facts without getting into editing wars to support one-sided agendas. You have maintained that a coroner declared the child "dead", that is not in dispute. What is disputed is how the material is presented in that article, and what exactly is meant by brain death in this case. By the way, the people who have been misdiagnosed as brain-dead have helped advance the diagnoses by highlighting the mistakes that were made-showing medicine what NOT to do and/or what additional steps will lead to a correct diagnoses. Even though the girl has been declared brain-dead, her physical body is alive until some time after her heart stops. There is a lot of confusion about this case because of the legal issues. Her body is being kept alive, but her brain has been declared dead. I think that the article needs to reflect those facts. It would help to add some good medical journal references,specifically pointing-out that a body can "die" while on life-support, but that Jahi's body has not done that yet as far as we know. Also there are journal/professional references that show that brain dead patients have "physically lived" for over 30 years in a "brain dead" (not coma, not vegetative state as the article currently suggests with that propaganda-like section) condition, but that their bodies have been relatively healthy but I'm too tired for that right now. Legally dead-legally brain dead-no argument, but she is physically alive and that needs to be addressed and it keeps getting censored-out of the article. 24.0.133.234 ( talk) 03:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Declared dead on December 12th, released from hospital almost a month later. Are you suggesting that she was physically dead during that month that we are certain that her body was at the hospital? No. That is what the article needs to clarify. That her body was physically alive, not dead. If her body was dead no life support could have kept it out of the morgue for almost a month-could it? 24.0.133.234 ( talk) 03:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I hope that someone else can add to this too. I don't really want to dispute it with you either, because it looks like we have drawn the opposite conclusion here and i know that I am not qualified to convince you since I came to this article as a user lol to answer some of the questions that I had about this exact issue. Hopefully I will have time to find my references, but even with what I have seen about this there has been a lot of confusion. Not so much about brain-death, although I'm tending to look at that as more of a legal definition, but the clarification needs to be concerning physical death. And I will agree that we don't know her current condition, or after she was released from the hospital. Since she was declared legally dead I guess that child protection services can't legally intervene either. But it is my understanding that nothing except maybe freezing will keep a body from ceasing to function if it is physically dead. 24.0.133.234 ( talk) 04:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Note to editors: This article is now listed at the BLP noticeboard. Funcrunch ( talk) 16:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank-you for posting those references and addressing the problem. I finally forced myself to read the report that supposedly refutes the fact that the legal definition of brain death was developed as an ad hoc response to vital organ transplants which end the life of someone who is brain dead. Not sure that it supports that premise. I am already familiar with most of the other sources listed, and frankly, they appear mostly biased towards one-side of the issue, especially the blogs and the comments contained in the blogs but they do have some good questions and answers about brain death and the issues involved. There are also links and references available which are more neutral, but which lean towards answering the question-(is Jahi McMath physically dead?)-which in my opinion would say "No."
What I am asking for is a compromise in the grammar used in this particular article-not to redefine brain death. The fact that the term brain-death requires that the word (brain) be added to (death) leaves the option of some OTHER, or even "plain" death open, at least in a grammatical sense of things. It is not the job of Wikipedia to conform to euphemisms.It was even pointed-out in one of the sources referenced that "life support" cannot be maintained on a "dead" body, proving that the body is not dead. I say let's mince words here, use the correct medical terms, and the traditional terms for death as well. At least as long as the subject of the article is still "alive" in the way that people understand/define biologically "living". This is a special case, and the political and other questions should not be forced on this particular article to commit one way or the other.
I don't think that anyone wants to omit or dispute whether or not the child has been declared brain-dead, or even legally dead, but there are objection towards portraying a living human being as a "corpse" which the tone of the article currently maintains, and which is objectionable for many reasons, not the least of that it it is factually not correct.
24.0.133.234 (
talk)
00:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Also. It is my understanding that Jahi McMath's diagnoses could be changed at this point, or even at the point where she was released from the hospital to something called, "chronic brain death", as opposed to "brain death"-the latter which implies an imminent complete demise/physical no-coming-back-(or whatever anyone wants to call "death" as we know it). "Chronic brain death", is apparently what happens when a person diagnosed with brain death, goes on past the immediate few days that the "brain dead" do not survive. There have been cases of chronically brain dead patients being maintained for decades and those people were not considered to be or referred-to as "corpses"/deceased, until all bodily functions had ended. In this case the legal actions do make it interesting and are part of the story of Jahi McMath-(belongs in the article)--but that still doesn't mean that Wikipedia has to take one side or the other in regards to whether or not, or to what degree of "dead" she is or was on the last known date of her condition. 24.0.133.234 ( talk) 00:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't really know where to put this, so sorry if it is not in the right place. About the "Harvard" 1968 landmark and discussed here brain-death topic, this reference from Pubmed has some more information and a review of the review that disputed whether or not organ-donation had anything to do with it. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3574564/#Sec2title I agree that the McMath case article has about zero to do with organ or transplant topics EXCEPT for the origins and crossing-of terms pertaining to the brain-dead condition of donors. Which i really think should be avoided in this article. And, i also believe that this (incorrect in a LOT of instances)cross-referencing of different terms used regarding, death, brain-death in particular, and organ transplants and recovery, are part of the problem. The transplant industry uses terms related to the brain-dead, that just do not fit here, but they have been used here. In the glossary of the transplant profession, the only living donor is someone who remains living and recovers from the donation, the rest are varyingly classified as "cadavers", even-though they are not "corpses"-as traditionally defined. I'm not arguing with what the transplant professionals use as highly-specialized tools to define their job, but I am arguing that it is their industry jargon and terminology, and that to use those same terms in basically unrelated instances, is not the job of WP, or anyone else, including medicine for anyone who is not involved with organ transplant.(and I am actually excluding irreversible brain-death, since there is a use for that term in medicine, up until if/when they decide to change it again) 24.0.133.234 ( talk) 05:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I attempted to integrate some of the information regarding Dr. Bryne previously added by 24.0.133.234 and also mentioned by Ca2james in talk. I think this edit could use a stronger ref for the statement that brain death is legal death in all 50 states. Currently, it’s only referenced by an article in the popular press regarding the McMath & Munoz cases, but I suspect there are much stronger references for this from legal sources, etc.-- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 22:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I have to make an objection the the resources used in this paragraph and even the content. Using British medical journals which was apparent by the spelling of the word, "defences" in the title of one said ref., We are going waaaaaaay beyond the Jahi McMath case. Dr Bryne, objection to Dr. Bryne, yes. That is part of the case, but using foreign medical references takes this too far-off the topic and does not even apply to the same criteria that is used, (UDDA) in the US where the McMath case is. Foreign definitions and foreign references may have a place somewhere in this article, but not as it applies to the Jahi McMath case content.The British do not use the same criteria to determine irreversible brain death as we do here anyways so it cannot be used to apply to this case can it? 24.0.133.234 ( talk) 00:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I think I've got it now. Judge Grillo (State court) issued a temporary restraining order on December 20. On December 23, there was a hearing where Grillo listened to both sides and then appointed Dr. Fisher as the independent expert assigned to evaluate the state of Jahi's brain. I think that the family also requested that Dr. Byrne examine her during that hearing. I can't find records of the hearing itself; only records of the results of the hearing (which do not mention him) are available, as well as news reports saying that the family wanted Dr. Byrne to examine Jahi. The next day (December 24), Dr. Fisher presented his findings to the court. The hospital also filed a document opposing Dr. Byrne as examiner. Judge Grillo then extended the restraining order for a week and did not mention Dr. Byrne. Later, on January 2, the family filed with the Federal court to have tubes put into Jahi. Part of that filing was a statement by Dr. Byrne [5]. This filing was later rendered moot after the settlement conference was concluded [6]. Ca2james ( talk) 19:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
To correct the timeline, the hospital's opposition to Dr. Byrne was filed in in U.S. District Court, well after the Dec. 24 ruling, and it would therefore be anachronistic to use that opposition to discuss the motion filed on Dec. 23. So I've used other sources to describe Byrne's point of view. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 23:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Also, as per this appeal document filed by McMath's family's attorneys, the trial court judge explicitly declined the request to have Byrne conduct an examination. See Page 4. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 00:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with the inclusion of Dr Byrne's statement about the ventilator not working on a dead body. He is not named in court rulings and is a supporting character in this drama. Therefore, his opinions are just bystander opinions, of no more direct relevance than Bob the Builder's would be. When included in the article with Dr Fisher's court-requested comments, his opinions are given equal weight which is
WP:UNDUE, even when they're qualified by the statement that he didnt examine her. I'm fine leaving the preceding statement in but that quote needs to go.
Ca2james (
talk)
04:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I've been doing some research into the order of the various legal motions in the various courts and the timeline for what happened. I think it might be important to note that the first few motions were just to keep the girl on the ventilator while the motions starting on December 30 were to insert the tubes required for the transfer. I'm not sure how best to include all of this info in the article (I think it's too long and convoluted for a simple bulleted timeline) so I thought I'd put out my notes for you all. I know my references aren't in the right format but I can fix that if you want.
December 9 - Surgery
December 12 - Brain death
December 16 - Family upset with hospital because hospial wants to turn off ventilator [7]
December 17 - Family lawyer issues "cease and desist" action to keep Jahi on ventilator [8], [9]
December 20 - family meets with hospital and are very unhappy [10]
December 20 - Family seeks temporary restraining order in State court, which is granted [11]
December 23 - Fisher appointed [12], [13]
December 24 - hospital opposes Dr. Byrne and and asks life support to be dismissed (Alameda County Superior Court) [14], [15] [16]
December 24 - Grillo orders Jahi kept on breathing machine (extends restraining order) after hearing hospital expert (Robin Shanahan) and independent expert (Fisher) [17] [18], [19]
December 24 - "In ruling Tuesday, the judge made no mention of the family’s desire for Dr. Paul Byrne, a pediatric professor at the University of Toledo, to examine the teen." [20]
December 26 - Family wants to transfer Jahi to another location. Sticking point is that they want tubes inserted and hospital says no [21]
December 27 - Hospital agrees that Jahi can be transferred [22], [23]. Hospital places conditions on transfer: must happen through coroner, hospital must speak with receiving facility, and hospital will not install tubes [24]
December 30 - Family files appeal (1st District Court of Appeal) to prevent disconnection of ventilator. Appeals court granted temporary stay which expires 5pm December 31 so appeals judges can review case [25]
December 30 - Family files in Federal court to equire CHO to insert ventilation and tubes [26], [27]
December 30 - Federal court defers restraining order and denies tube insertion [28], [29]
December 30 - Grillo (Alameda County superior court) extends stay to Jan 7 [30]
December 31 - Dolan applies to 1st District Court of Appeal to force hospital to insert tubes; appeal denied [31] Appeals court will not compel hospital to put in tubes; case must work its way through lower (superior) court first. Federal court says case must work through state court [32]
January 2 - Federal judge orders settlement conference [33], [34]
January 2 - Family files federal appeal to force hospital to insert tubes [35], [36], [37] - this filing includes a statement by Dr. Paul Byrne
January 3 - settlement reached. Body goes to mother, who takes responsibility for care (including cardiac); no tubes inserted [38]
January 3 - Hospital response to January 2 Federal appeal to insert tubes [39]
January 6 - Jahi transferred from CHO to undisclosed location [40]
January 6 - Federal court denies motion for tubes as moot and terminates Dec 30 motion for restraining order [41], [42]
January 8 - Jahi receives tubes [43]
January 29 - Notice of voluntary dismissal in Federal court by family [44]
Ca2james ( talk) 01:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Ummm, 24.0.133.234 ( talk),..... while I appreciate that you want to include this timeline in the article, I meant for it to be used as a starting point, not to be put in as-is! The language is nowhere near encyclopedic or necessarily neutral as these were just my notes that I thought I'd share with you all. The phrasing definitely needs to be re-worked; we can't just say that the family was upset, for example, as BoboMeowCat ( talk) pointed out. Personally, I'd rather see the timeline taken out until the language is improved but since I didn't put it in, I won't take it out. Ca2james ( talk) 17:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
We should not be giving any weight to a discussion by a person who according to the sources decided what her condition was even before seeing her, and who did not give an official evaluation to the court. This seems like coatracking an opinion into the article. Yobol ( talk) 21:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Quotations don't always add to an article. Especially in light of the fact that what Byrne says is probably a fringe opinion, we needn't give it too much presence in the article. I might suggest trimming the quotation itself, or even just summarizing his point in a few words, which is all it really needs. Be careful about relying too much on primary sources for how you shape this article as well. These include interviews, and drawing conclusions based on quotations may be a form of unpublished synthesis. Just go by what the secondary sources say. And also be careful about taking WP:FRINGE too far and applying it in such a way that WP:NPOV or WP:BLP is violated. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 09:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Folks, whatever anyone's opinion is on the situation, the fact is that the coroner issued a death certificate dated December 12, 2013. It makes sense to me to include that in the article as Jahi's death date. If we keep going back and forth on whether Jahi "is" or "was" it's going to make this page lose credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funcrunch ( talk • contribs) 16:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
By all legal standards she is deceased and has been since December 12th. Towards the best interest of factual accuracy we have no choice but to go with the legal POV until it changes. 69.246.141.209 ( talk) 19:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Legally dead but is she grammatically dead? In this case it may be necessary to just have the edit-war appear in article? is/was, date of "legal" death/ , and so on. Using "was" instead of "is" is grammatically awkward and I think incorrect. A (noun) "is"-not was. The subject of the article "is"-not was if you want the subject to agree with the context, and although the child "was" declared "legally" dead, until she has "actually" died, there are too many political overtones to this. 24.0.133.234 ( talk) 00:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if it is appropriate for this article to elaborate on exactly what legally dead but on life support, and technically dead means, but from the way that I understand it, the legal definition of "brain death", was created by Drs at Harvard in order to facilitate removing organs from a person being kept alive on machines, which in reality is what caused the death of such people. By declaring a person "legally" brain-dead, this ending of one person's life by removing their organs, (which were only being kept functioning on machines to make them available for transplant)--would not be subject to criminal, and moral objections which were brought up by family members of the donors, recipients, and members of the transplant operation. In cases like Jahi's, a diagnoses of brain-death can be used to remove or refuse life support, but there are questions and different legal, ethical, religious...views on the subject. Why is only one view being pushed on Wikipedia? (that a person being kept alive on life support after being declared brain-dead is "dead"). Wikipedia should be able to reflect the uncertainties involved with this case for the main reason that WP will likely be used as a resource for people researching this case. The article, edit-warring etc. does a disservice to WP users by refusing to acknowledge the questions that have been raised, and only providing one side to a contentious issue. Readers are aware that there are political and ethical questions here and for WP editors to get heavy-handed and maintain this "legally brain-dead" position when readers already know that it has been disputed, looks like propaganda and censorship to me. 24.0.133.234 ( talk) 02:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
The evidence is that as far as we know, her body is continuing to function with the help of life-support. If she were physically deceased, her body would die/deteriorate/decay and life-support or machines would not be able to sustain cardiac and the other functions that are apparently being assisted. This is an ongoing learning issue and it is only fair to WP users to present the correct facts without getting into editing wars to support one-sided agendas. You have maintained that a coroner declared the child "dead", that is not in dispute. What is disputed is how the material is presented in that article, and what exactly is meant by brain death in this case. By the way, the people who have been misdiagnosed as brain-dead have helped advance the diagnoses by highlighting the mistakes that were made-showing medicine what NOT to do and/or what additional steps will lead to a correct diagnoses. Even though the girl has been declared brain-dead, her physical body is alive until some time after her heart stops. There is a lot of confusion about this case because of the legal issues. Her body is being kept alive, but her brain has been declared dead. I think that the article needs to reflect those facts. It would help to add some good medical journal references,specifically pointing-out that a body can "die" while on life-support, but that Jahi's body has not done that yet as far as we know. Also there are journal/professional references that show that brain dead patients have "physically lived" for over 30 years in a "brain dead" (not coma, not vegetative state as the article currently suggests with that propaganda-like section) condition, but that their bodies have been relatively healthy but I'm too tired for that right now. Legally dead-legally brain dead-no argument, but she is physically alive and that needs to be addressed and it keeps getting censored-out of the article. 24.0.133.234 ( talk) 03:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Declared dead on December 12th, released from hospital almost a month later. Are you suggesting that she was physically dead during that month that we are certain that her body was at the hospital? No. That is what the article needs to clarify. That her body was physically alive, not dead. If her body was dead no life support could have kept it out of the morgue for almost a month-could it? 24.0.133.234 ( talk) 03:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I hope that someone else can add to this too. I don't really want to dispute it with you either, because it looks like we have drawn the opposite conclusion here and i know that I am not qualified to convince you since I came to this article as a user lol to answer some of the questions that I had about this exact issue. Hopefully I will have time to find my references, but even with what I have seen about this there has been a lot of confusion. Not so much about brain-death, although I'm tending to look at that as more of a legal definition, but the clarification needs to be concerning physical death. And I will agree that we don't know her current condition, or after she was released from the hospital. Since she was declared legally dead I guess that child protection services can't legally intervene either. But it is my understanding that nothing except maybe freezing will keep a body from ceasing to function if it is physically dead. 24.0.133.234 ( talk) 04:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Note to editors: This article is now listed at the BLP noticeboard. Funcrunch ( talk) 16:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank-you for posting those references and addressing the problem. I finally forced myself to read the report that supposedly refutes the fact that the legal definition of brain death was developed as an ad hoc response to vital organ transplants which end the life of someone who is brain dead. Not sure that it supports that premise. I am already familiar with most of the other sources listed, and frankly, they appear mostly biased towards one-side of the issue, especially the blogs and the comments contained in the blogs but they do have some good questions and answers about brain death and the issues involved. There are also links and references available which are more neutral, but which lean towards answering the question-(is Jahi McMath physically dead?)-which in my opinion would say "No."
What I am asking for is a compromise in the grammar used in this particular article-not to redefine brain death. The fact that the term brain-death requires that the word (brain) be added to (death) leaves the option of some OTHER, or even "plain" death open, at least in a grammatical sense of things. It is not the job of Wikipedia to conform to euphemisms.It was even pointed-out in one of the sources referenced that "life support" cannot be maintained on a "dead" body, proving that the body is not dead. I say let's mince words here, use the correct medical terms, and the traditional terms for death as well. At least as long as the subject of the article is still "alive" in the way that people understand/define biologically "living". This is a special case, and the political and other questions should not be forced on this particular article to commit one way or the other.
I don't think that anyone wants to omit or dispute whether or not the child has been declared brain-dead, or even legally dead, but there are objection towards portraying a living human being as a "corpse" which the tone of the article currently maintains, and which is objectionable for many reasons, not the least of that it it is factually not correct.
24.0.133.234 (
talk)
00:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Also. It is my understanding that Jahi McMath's diagnoses could be changed at this point, or even at the point where she was released from the hospital to something called, "chronic brain death", as opposed to "brain death"-the latter which implies an imminent complete demise/physical no-coming-back-(or whatever anyone wants to call "death" as we know it). "Chronic brain death", is apparently what happens when a person diagnosed with brain death, goes on past the immediate few days that the "brain dead" do not survive. There have been cases of chronically brain dead patients being maintained for decades and those people were not considered to be or referred-to as "corpses"/deceased, until all bodily functions had ended. In this case the legal actions do make it interesting and are part of the story of Jahi McMath-(belongs in the article)--but that still doesn't mean that Wikipedia has to take one side or the other in regards to whether or not, or to what degree of "dead" she is or was on the last known date of her condition. 24.0.133.234 ( talk) 00:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't really know where to put this, so sorry if it is not in the right place. About the "Harvard" 1968 landmark and discussed here brain-death topic, this reference from Pubmed has some more information and a review of the review that disputed whether or not organ-donation had anything to do with it. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3574564/#Sec2title I agree that the McMath case article has about zero to do with organ or transplant topics EXCEPT for the origins and crossing-of terms pertaining to the brain-dead condition of donors. Which i really think should be avoided in this article. And, i also believe that this (incorrect in a LOT of instances)cross-referencing of different terms used regarding, death, brain-death in particular, and organ transplants and recovery, are part of the problem. The transplant industry uses terms related to the brain-dead, that just do not fit here, but they have been used here. In the glossary of the transplant profession, the only living donor is someone who remains living and recovers from the donation, the rest are varyingly classified as "cadavers", even-though they are not "corpses"-as traditionally defined. I'm not arguing with what the transplant professionals use as highly-specialized tools to define their job, but I am arguing that it is their industry jargon and terminology, and that to use those same terms in basically unrelated instances, is not the job of WP, or anyone else, including medicine for anyone who is not involved with organ transplant.(and I am actually excluding irreversible brain-death, since there is a use for that term in medicine, up until if/when they decide to change it again) 24.0.133.234 ( talk) 05:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)