Talk:Jahi McMath case

Further Developments

It should be included that the girl('s body) was moved by ground ambulance with the assistance of the Terry Schiavo Foundation, first to an undisclosed Catholic Charity Medical Center in the Greater San Francisco Bay Area for doctors there to re-install feeding and hydration tubes, and then subsequently transferred to a still-further facility whose identity also remains a mystery where she is reported to be "improving" after suffering nearly a month with neither feeding nor any hydration other than those contained in the IV fluids. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.176.228 (talk) 16:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

No reliable news sources have confirmed where the body was taken or what has been done to it since the family left the hospital. We only have the word of the family and their lawyer. Funcrunch (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Feeding and hydration tubes had never been installed on Jahi and so they were not "re-installed" after she left CHO. The family had petitioned the courts to force CHO to install the tubes after Jahi was declared brain-dead but the courts refused this request. Ca2james (talk) 04:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion?

I vote for deletion. 69.246.141.209 (talk) 05:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I now change my vote to KEEP since the story has blown up even more. 69.246.141.209 (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Care to state a reason? Funcrunch (talk) 05:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Because while currently newsworthy, it's not Wiki-worthy. It's barely a stub of an article, there is little info on McMath's life, family, history, etc., there is no legal precedence activities and is essentially providing news updates. It's not notable outside of current events. Delete. Seola (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The article may be a stub now, but it is being fleshed out. I definitely feel this case has the potential to set/change legal precedents going forward.Funcrunch (talk) 16:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT a political agenda platform, it is an INFORMATIONAL service. 69.246.141.209 (talk) 10:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Whose political agenda are you talking about? I have absolutely no personal stake in this case, and I would hope that none of the other editors thus far do either. I am trying to present a neutral point of view of the actual facts of this case with my edits. By saying that this case has the potential to change legal precedents I definitely did not mean to imply that I hope it does, because I definitely don't. Funcrunch (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Vote keep: A case where a family rejects brain death will come up again, and it's always useful to have precedent recorded. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Vote keep: This is a case which is an important illustration about legal death / brain death. Jaxbax7 (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

This is an important case, covered in literally ALL of the mainstream news media since it deals with the public's handling of a person who has been declared brain-dead/legally dead by the medical and legal communities. It is relevant because legal intervention was used to move a dead person but still on medical supportive devices (respirator etc) out from the hospital/coroner pick up system. It contrasts strongly with the Karen Ann Quinlan case which former of which helped solidify the uniform determination of death act and the Terri Shiavo case of which dealt with a woman in a persistent vegetative state but not a brain dead person. It is certainly of interest to the greater public which is building a greater understanding of the "common" definition of death in the medical/legal communities which is not so "common" in the public. Even after McMath's body is no longer maintained by technical means, the importance of how this brain-death case was handled legally, medically, and from a public policy perspective is relevant to both the professional medical community and the public at large.Jaxbax7 (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

This has been in widely varied national media as a curiosity on brain death. It's notorious enough to warrant an article and not difficult to source from multiple independent neutral sources. 66.168.25.34 (talk) 04:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Title

Should this page be moved to "Jahi McMath" or, seeing as it might be deleted, would it be best to just hold off until a decision is made in order to avoid confusion? –RedSoxFan274 _{(talk~contribs)} 07:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

While the family's Facebook and GoFundMe pages use the spelling "Mcmath", the court documents use "McMath" so the latter is probably the correct spelling. The page was already moved once (the last name was completely lowercase when the page was created) but I'd be in favor of moving it again. Funcrunch (talk) 07:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Jahi McMath died on December 12, 2013

Jahi McMath died on December 12, 2013. Source: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-jahi-mcmaths-release-seen-as-victory-20140105,0,696646.story#axzz2pdFYvNba

She is not in a coma. She is not in a vegetative state. She is literally dead. 173.162.252.241 (talk) 15:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Although the coroner did issue a death certificate, the family and her supporters' disagreement with that, and the nationwide attention resulting from that disagreement, is what makes this case so interesting and controversial. I'm looking at BLP policy to try to figure out if this article would still fall under it; from this section it seems it would. Funcrunch (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

She is dead as declared by the physicians and the Judge. I do no think the people's beliefs are authoritative. I think we should put the date of death in her wiki article, and treat this article as if it were of dead person.. I think Judge's ruling, physicians' diagnoses, and coroner death certificate are enough to say that she is dead. Controversy and attention do not change the facts. The Determinator p t c 16:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The BLP section I quoted above though does say that BLP applies to people who have recently died, and to "contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends". Funcrunch (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this article falls under BLP. But that just means that extra care should be put in to ensure everything is neutral POV, verifiable, and no original research. Funcrunch, what exactly are your concerns here? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there anything in particular in the article which you think isn't neutral, isn't verifiable, or is original research? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't have any concerns with the article as it currently stands. I was mostly addressing the comments above that were emphasizing that Jahi is dead, a statement I don't personally disagree with. Funcrunch (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not the first time that parents of a `dead' child have tried to and/or succeeded in `opting out' of a medical decision regarding the presence or absence of life. Some have ended up walking or wheeling out of the hospital days, weeks, months or years later and others have experienced cardiac death in the interim - but the common ground here was all were declared legally brain dead by multitudes of doctors, lawyers and chiefs.

Just gonna go ahead and ask you to give a source that isn't a tabloid here.76.184.230.109 (talk) 13:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

With this in mind, we should remember that she is not and was not receiving life sustaining treatment after her death on December 12th, 2013. She was mechanically ventilated and received IV fluids but neither of these can be life sustaining in someone who is already dead. -- 07 Feb 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.18.234 (talk) 01:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Student

At the time of her death, McMath was an 8th grade student at E.C. Reems Academy of Technology and Arts in Oakland 173.162.252.241 (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but being a student is not an occupation. It's just being a student. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

These kinds of personal details are irrelevant for the article; the encyclopedic interest here is the debate on medical issues. Given that it's a recently deceased person, the bias would be towards privacy and not including personal details that are irrelevant to the notability of the case. 24.18.193.73 (talk) 14:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The school has now become a player in this case, having had a "Prayer assembly" on behalf of the deceased student. This has resulted in a formal complaint based on Separation of Church and State being filed against the school ( http://ffrf.org/news/news-releases/item/19947-ffrf-asks-for-probe-of-oakland-charter-school ) and apparently the replacement of Principal Blair by Dr. Paul Organ ( http://ecreemsacademy.org/news.cfm?story=78199&school=0 ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.163.214.194 (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protection?

I think this article is highly likely to attract vandals. What is the procedure to request that it be semi-protected so only registered users can edit for a time? Funcrunch (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion that it's highly likely to attract vandal probably isn't enough for admins to protect the page. If vandalism actually becomes a problem, then the instructions are here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob drobbs (talk • contribs) 19:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the most recent disruptive edits are from registered users, not IPs, so I don't know if requesting semi-protection will help anyway. *sigh* Funcrunch (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Another editor made the request, and as of today, page is under semi-protection for one week. Funcrunch (talk) 18:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

McMath family lawyer

Christopher B. Dolan, the McMath family's pro-bono lawyer, has made the absurd claim today that families, not doctors, should decide when a person is dead. See http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-jahi-lawyer-life-and-death-20140107,0,1598073.story?track=rss#axzz2pdFYvNba

173.162.252.241 (talk) 03:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Updates on what has been done to Jahi's body

According to this Associated Press article from today,

• Jahi's body is being given intravenous antibiotics, minerals and supplements and is hooked to a ventilator (for free)
• Winkfield/McMath family has raised almost $50,000 in donations from the public but the facility that is housing and treating Jahi is doing it for free
• Jahi's mother claims she (the mother) is a "devout Christian"
• Winkfield/McMath family is going to sue Children's Hospital for violating their "religious and privacy rights"
• Jahi's maternal uncle Omari Sealey says that he believes that Jahi is not dead
• A doctor interviewed for the article said that the bodies of brain dead people on ventilators can last from days to months
• Jahi is not in a coma but dead because "there is no blood flow or electrical activity in either her cerebrum or the brain stem that controls breathing"

173.162.252.241 (talk) 03:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Adding some of this information would help to flesh out the story here. As it stands the implication seems to be that Jahi died, end of story -- whereas actually it is what has happened since she was declared dead that has given this case ongoing interest. 131.191.115.147 (talk) 02:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I had already added the part about the family claiming their religious freedom was being violated, and the article mentions her being on a ventilator at the Children's Hospital. What happened since her body left the hospital has not been verified by any independent sources, only tweets from Jahi's lawyer and family members. Funcrunch (talk) 06:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring on death date and verb tenses

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)

It's a controversial topic since many people (myself not included) believe she's still alive. I'm not sure how to best solve this, but I say that the vast majority of verifiable credible references say she's deceased, thus we should go with that. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:58, 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)

Legally dead is actually dead. This is not a political statement, this is the decision of the coroner. There has been no reversal to the coroner's declaration of death, and no legal judgment that says that Jahi McMath is anything other than dead. Funcrunch (talk) 01:43, 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)

Brain death vs brain-death

I changed all of the "brain deaths" to "brain-death."

See: Talk page of Brain death - Spelling of "brain dead": with or without hyphen

173.162.252.241 (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

If I read the referenced talk page correctly, and according to the article on brain death itself, the preferred hyphenation is "brain death" for the noun and "brain-dead" for the adjective. Funcrunch (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Reference for cause of bleeding

I have seen a couple of people adding here and on other websites that the family gave her part of a hamburger and also that the grandmother was messing with the suction even though told not to. The statements were quickly reverted each time because they were not accompanied by a website that made the statement. Does anyone know who reported that and where they got that info? Most of the people said the grandmother admitted it. But where are these people getting that info? I've seen fairly consistent versions on numerous sites (comment section on news sites, edits to this article, etc. I tried to use google to find the original source but i could only find all these comment sections and forums, not a reliable source. That makes me think that it was one rumor that spread. I initially thought it had to be genuine given the wide range of websites I saw it. But given that large spread, you would think it several sources confirmed it. My question here is if anyone has seen this from a reliable source? Second question is if anyone has seen an update. Latest reports I found were quick vague reports that they released the body to the family so they could continue "life support".. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.68.35 (talk) 06:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I have yet to see any reliable source confirm the alleged hamburger feeding or suctioning. As far as updates, I've seen no news of the body's whereabouts or independently verifiable reports of the body's condition since the family left the hospital. Funcrunch (talk) 07:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Admission of suctioning by family: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZhhTWhlW9c — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.163.214.194 (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)