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)

The article absolutely acknowledges that questions has been raised. If McMath's death weren't questioned there would be no point to the article's existence. However, this article is also presenting the facts of the case and the fact is that the coroner issued a death certificate dated December 12, 2013. There has been no evidence presented by any reliable source to dispute that that date was the date that McMath died. Funcrunch (talk) 03:04, 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)

There has been no evidence presented in any reliable source that McMath was still alive as of December 12, 2013. Furthermore, there has been no evidence presented in any reliable source of what condition her body is in since the coroner released her body to the family on January 5, 2014. If you have any such evidence feel free to add it, with citations, to the article. In the meantime, as I posted on your talk page in response to your message, I have sought editor assistance in resolving this dispute. Funcrunch (talk) 03:47, 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 am not only suggesting but asserting that based on all available evidence, Jahi McMath died on December 12. Her body was kept on a ventilator which enabled her heart to keep beating, but she was not "physically alive" after that date. I am not going to dispute this point with you further; I will await the input of other editors. Funcrunch (talk) 04:08, 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)

I wanted to address as many of your concerns as possible; I hope this information helps clear things up for you. I've included some links to references and I hope I've done that right as I haven't done much Wikipedia editing at all.

Jahi's body has been receiving mechanical ventilation which, in essence, forces oxygen into the lungs and removes carbon dioxide . This, in turn, forces the heart to beat, which then circulates blood throughout her body. Her heart cannot beat without the mechanical assistance of the ventilator because her brain has died and does not signal the heart to beat.

Modern medical technology is amazing. We have the power to mechanically force almost every system in the body to work - except for the brain, that is. If the brain dies we have no way to restart it; all we can do is mechanically animate the rest of the body. If the entire brain is confirmed dead and the body cannot function on its own, logically the body is dead. Note that her brain was pronounced dead by several separate doctors who administered the required tests (pdf). There's a good bunch of blog posts by this doctor on Jahi and brain death that I recommend reading, starting with the FAQ: .

Her brain has almost certainly decomposed due to a lack of oxygen and her body has been deteriorating. It was deteriorating before she left the hospital (pdf). This deterioration is clear in pictures: her skin has a grey cast and appears loose.

Finally, I think it was mentioned earlier that brain death was developed just for organ transplants. This is not true - see ref

References

http://news.kron4.com/news/jahi-mcmath-family-seeking-last-minute-injunction-to-keep-teen-on-life-support/

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2013/12/30/temporary-restraining-order-gives-girl-declared-brain-dead-at-oakland-hospital-another-week-on-ventilator/

http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_24865029/jahi-mcmath-streetfighting-lawyer-takes-heat-death-threats

https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/vent/

http://www.thaddeuspope.com/images/CHO_-_Physician_Decls.pdf

http://docbastard.blogspot.ca/2014/01/jahi-mcmath-faq.html

http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.ca/2014/01/jahi-mcmath-merely-dead-or-really-most.html

http://media.nbcbayarea.com/documents/HeidiFlori.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2652772/?report=classic

Ca2james (talk) 16:00, 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)

"Life support" is actually medically called "mechanical ventilation" and several people writing in the main-stream media have expressed a desire to change the "life support" terminology so as to avoid confusion.

Jahi is not alive in any medical way and there is absolutely no credible medical or legal dispute about that. The article is factually correct. Ca2james (talk) 15:27, 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)

The coroner has issued a death certificate. There is no coming back. This is not a vegetative state or a coma or anything like it. She had zero brain activity, a flatline EEG. Under American law, brain death is death. We can note the fringe view that she is not dead, but we are not required to give that view equal time/equal space/equal credence. By all mainstream criteria, Jahi is dead. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Brain death is final and irreversible and Jahi's condition and diagnosis will not change. Your terminology suggestions have no basis in medical or legal literature and therefore have no place in a Wikipedia article. I think you're arguing issues that are larger than this case and more properly belong in a discussion of brain death and medical ethics. Ca2james (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is a medical terminology reference regarding "Chronic Brain Death"-just so you know that it is not my terminology. Please note that over 200 other articles have cited that one. https://www.neurology.org/content/51/6/1538.short 24.0.133.234 (talk) 20:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Also after this article was published in Neurobiology, there were some strong opposing comments/correspondence but I cannot open that at this point. www.neurology.org/content/53/6/1369.short?sid=fcfa8a95-2079-400a-a2d8-407c48347f9724.0.133.234 (talk) 20:44, 24 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)

"Related cases" section

Somewhat per WP:COATRACK and WP:TOPIC, I'm BOLDly removing the entire "Related cases" section, which deals loosely with the underlying ethics question, and more generally consists of content about persons unrelated to the McMath case. In general, the content belongs at Euthanasia in the United States or Brain death (at least for those cases mentioned that actually involve brain death as opposed to persistent vegetative states). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

By removing related cases and making this whole article a bunch of block text it becomes hard to follow, and gives persons new to the topic no context by quickly accessing similar cases to form their own opinion. (Jaxbax7 (talk) 22:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC))

Death certificate official or not?

Uh-oh. Just noticed this in an CNN article http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/06/health/jahi-mcmath-girl-brain-dead/index.html (copied from linked article):"The Alameda County coroner issued a death certificate for Jahi on Friday, listing December 12 as the date of death. The certificate still needed to be accepted by the health department to become official." -So there was no official death certificate when she was released from the hospital? Is there one? Is that why almost every valid source mention that I have seen of the death certificate, an addendum is included that cause of death has been left blank pending autopsy or some such wording? Can a death certificate be registered that does NOT have something in the "cause of death"-space? Just wondering here if Jahi could be, or have been even less legally dead than all implications which have been promoted? 24.0.133.234 (talk) 02:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

There's been no autopsy because the family has refused to let a qualified medical examiner perform an autopsy. That does not prevent a finding of death. One does not need to know why someone is dead to declare that they are dead. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Q:Has Jahi McMath been issued an official death certificate or not? The link says "not". 24.0.133.234 (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The coroner has issued a death certificate but without a cause of death, that certificate remains unofficial. Ca2james (talk) 01:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

JAMA editorial

This editorial from JAMA would probably be good to add context to this case. Yobol (talk) 02:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

That is a good reference imo. Even though it is an editorial opinion, there is some better jargon found there that might help clarify some of the issues. I find it pretty interesting that it appears that the medical profession seems to be in agreement that brain-death=death. Referring to cardiac death as sentimental makes me wonder why I keep hearing about assisted breathing etc. machines..."only" being used so that family can "come to terms", or "say goodbye" to loved ones? Why is it that I hear about so many familys who seem to think that they actually made the "choice" to end life support? Why have brain-dead people on these machines at all? Why ask the family to make a decision/choice when according to JAMA-there is only one decision available? It seems to me that it is much easier for a family to come to terms and say goodbye to a dead person who is "really"-(cardiac) dead. It also seems to me like the whole thing is somewhat backwards and that once a person's heart cannot be revived, even if they were conscious when the heart stopped, there is really no question about death. Maybe I have a cultural bias here because apparently the state that I live in has an exception to the way that most other states do this and it all seems like news to me?
I also found a side-liked article about retrieving a man's sperm for the purpose of creating grandchildren somewhat related to the Jahi McMath case since there were questions raised about a parent's authority regarding brain-death and after-life decisions. I've also wondered how far someone in a situation like Jahi's parents could go with medical technology options at this point concerning questions like keeping Jahi's body alive as "spare parts" in the event that a family member needed a transplant, or cloning or other more unusual procedures. Releasing someone as a "legally dead"-person with no questions asked, or conditions imposed on what they do with someone in that condition, sets-up some novel scenarios and options. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hast.249/full,
24.0.133.234 (talk) 05:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Move to Jahi McMath case

Jahi McMath → Jahi McMath case – This article, as written, isn't a biography of Jahi McMath but an account of the events leading up to and following her being declared brain dead, so 'Jahi McMath case' would be a more accurate title. See also WP:ONEEVENT. Jeremy (talk) 02:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Precedence with Terri Schiavo case. Yobol (talk) 02:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Support. This move might also make it a bit easier to reword the description of the subject per the suggestions at the BLP noticeboard. Funcrunch (talk) 07:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Strong support - per above. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
  • It is good that NorthBySouthBaranof joined in this consensus-forming discussion, but quite wrong for them to boldy move the page only 20 minutes after commenting here. I have reverted that move pending the outcome of the discussion.
    When a consensus-forming discussion has started please wait for the outcome of that discussion before implementing its proposal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
    • There is no possible way to write an encyclopedic "biography" of a person who we know nothing about other than that she died. There is no evident opposition to the move and your blind adherence to process over doing what is right is nonsensical. You have not engaged in talk page discussion, expressed opposition to the move or articulated any reason why the article should not be at "Jahi McMath case." So I have moved it back, because process is bullshit.
    • If you want to actually oppose the move, and express reasons why it shouldn't be moved, then feel free to move it back, because the move will be contested. That is not the case at this point. Nobody thinks it shouldn't be at "Jahi McMath case." There is no reason to wait a week to implement a decision whose outcome is a foregone conclusion and in keeping with policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
      • If the result is a foregone conclusion, then ask for a speedy close or a snow close. But it is nonsensical to continue a consensus-forming discussion if the outcome has already been implemented.
        What's the rush? There is no deadline. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
        • Then I'll close it. No wonder nobody edits Wikipedia anymore - the adherence to bureaucracy is worse than in my day job with the government. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
          • Re-opened, because a WP:INVOLVED editor should not close a discussion. Just wait for the discussion to be closed. What's the hurry? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Strong support. It makes more sense to talk about the case involving the person than the person herself since the legal case and arguments are notable here and the person isn't notable in any other way. Ca2james (talk) 15:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• support The case is the topic here, not the girl.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment as an uninvolved editor I would be happy to perform a WP:SNOW close with a little more time (I would guess 24 hours should be more than enough). Someone else can do it now if they beleive the SNOW point has been reached. CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe in process (not every involved editor visits an article on a daily basis) so I think that 3 days is a minimum if this is a WP:SNOW close. It's not realistic to assume there is no opposition based on having a RM discussion open for a day. JMHO. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Sadly, some editors have in an extraordinary rush to close this discussion. There is no hurry, and a snow close with even the current total of only 4 explicit !votes is premature. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• support the move. Reason is that Terry Schivo case is listed as such. Also support removal of Jahi McMath infobox with, "date of death" unless that will affect search-engine behavior or apps somehow? pending checking with responses in Request for comments item mentioned above. The death certificate has not been registered by the state of California as far as we know-(also see above).24.0.133.234 (talk) 02:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support Makes sense per above Skrelk (talk) 06:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support McMath herself is only a minor part of the article; the meat of the information is about the events following her death.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 02:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support by several above. It's in accordance with the Wikipedia principle of making "case/indicident" articles instead of biographies when a person is just known for one event. In this case, it will also make the article easier to write as the "date of death" can be handled as part of the dispute that is the article's topic, instead of Wikipedians having to focus on what is the correct "date of death" in a biography article. Iselilja (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Life Support

In the interest of trying to keep this article as neutral as possible, I am proposing that the term. life support be changed to mechanical ventilation and (question-not sure how to phrase this, the JAMA reference quoted above states " sustaining her physiologic functions through ventilation and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy"-as specific to Jahi McMath, but we really do not know for sure what besides a ventilator is or was being used to keep her body functioning."Life support" is used throughout the article, so I am suggesting that it be replaced in each instance. Personally, it is my understanding that her physical life is (or was at the time of her release from the hospital)- being supported, and I don't really have an objection to the term being used in this case, but as far as the article is concerned, I'm thinking that changing the term may be more correct in cases where brain-death is an issue. There are other references which support not using the term "life support" in cases of brain-death, and if I can find one I will add it here. 24.0.133.234 (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that mechanical ventilation should be used in place of life support, since in this case there has been no life to support for over two months now. But I don't understand what distinction you're trying to draw when you say "physical life" or "physically alive". "Physical" as opposed to what? Spiritual? Funcrunch (talk) 01:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree mechanical ventilation is a good term for describing what is being done to Jahi McMath's body during the time period after her death was declared on Dec 12. No further inference as to what this means about her life-state is necessary. Legally she has been declared dead. (Jaxbax7 (talk) 22:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC))

As opposed to brain-death.Meaning precisely permanent "cardiac" death.24.0.133.234 (talk) 13:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)But, using "cardiac death"-in this case would probably be OK, but in the case of an organ donor for instance a person's ♥ and other vital organs can continue to survive, so simply using "cardiac death" (in general),could be tricky as well24.0.133.234 (talk) 13:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

24.0.133.234 (talk), it would be easier to follow the conversation if you indented your reply by inserting one more ":" than the text to which you are replying.

It seems that you're both trying to introduce new terminology and argue a philosophical debate about the meaning of death; a Wikipedia article or talk page are not the proper place to do that. Ca2james (talk) 16:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

My intent is to introduce neutral terminology to the article. The terminology has a lot to do with the reason for the case, so mention cannot be avoided, but WP should try not to take sides in the article one way or the other.24.0.133.234 (talk) 19:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Brain death is death. Full stop. You cannot live without a brain, and the brain cannot come back to life. There has been absolutely no evidence presented either in this case or in the history of medicine to argue otherwise. Funcrunch (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

A body can live and recover after brain-death has been diagnosed. It happens every day. I think that you mean "permanent"/irreversible" brain-death? That is part of the problem here. -Incorrect words and terms being used. Also please keep in mind that although irreversible brain-death, (legally dead as par UDD...), can mean "death", that the irreversible death of other vital organs such-as the heart, will always lead to brain-death. Not the other way around so besides your incorrect use of censoring and terms which you obviously do not understand, exactly the opposite of what you are saying there is correct.(medically, legally, and factually)24.0.133.234 (talk) 19:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

A body can be artificially maintained after brain death but it is not considered to be alive - and discussions otherwise belong somewhere else. Brain death is by definition irreversible and if the body is not artificially maintained afterwards, the vital organs will always stop functioning. Once again, you're trying to introduce terminology that is used in neither the medical nor legal fields and that has no place here. Ca2james (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The only major issue I see is when the reference itself only specifies "life support" - can we just change the term in the article? Also, please note that in some cases, "life support" includes a g-tube and trach (the items the family tried to force CHO to insert into Jahi's body) as well as mechanical ventilation. Ca2james (talk) 02:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes-that is exactly what I meant by, mechanical ventilation and (?). Life support is a broad term which can include all medical assistance.I'll keep looking because I know I saw a recommendation somewhere.24.0.133.234 (talk) 13:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Invalid death certificate?

http://ca.regstoday.com/law/hsc/ca.regstoday.com/laws/hsc/calaw-hsc_DIVISION102_PART1_CHAPTER6.aspx From the California law linked here,Each death shall be registered with the local registrar of births and deaths in the district in which the death was officially pronounced or the body was found, within eight calendar days after death and prior to any disposition of the human remains.

If the date of death was December 12, and the certificate was issued later than 8 days after that-(it was), it looks to be invalid to me. Not posting this item in article because there are no secondary references except the one which is posted and does declare the certificate to be "unofficial". 24.0.133.234 (talk) 13:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion of the validity of the death certificate shouldn't have an impact on the article not least because it's an original conclusion unsupported by references. None of us were present during the settlement conference where it was decided that the death certificate would be issued prior to the girl's body being released to her parents and we don't know if the coroner got special dispensation to issue a late death certificate. The death certificate is not official because the mother wouldn't allow an autopsy. The death certificate, having been issued, is good enough to determine the date of death. Ca2james (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no "smoking gun" here as you seem to be trying to imply. The hospital released Jahi's body to the coroner who then released the body to the family. They would not have done that had there been any question as to whether she was alive or dead. The date on the death certificate is the date that Jahi McMath died. There has been absolutely no evidence presented to contradict this finding of death. Funcrunch (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

see below and it most certainly is NOT just my "opinion" that the death certificate referenced in the article is invalid.If it were my opinion, I would NOT add it to a WP article.I would agree that adding "unofficial" to each instance of "death certificate" in the article, would make it more factually correct.No one has disagreed here that I know of or in the article that the girl was diagnosed with "brain death" or even, "legally' dead".24.0.133.234 (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Your original research has concluded that the death certificate is invalid and thus it is your opinion that it is invalid. Whether or not the death certificate is official or unofficial is irrelevant: the point is that the death certificate was issued. Ca2james (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I never tried to introduce "invalid" to the article itself. The way that I understand ALL secondary sources used in the article which mention the "issued" certificate, is that mention of "incompleteness" is included, and the Mercury News source added "unofficial"-(and it was NOT disputed by any other sources which by the terms of WP say that is an acceptable source btw). WHY try to CENSOR and HIDE this FACT in the case?24.0.133.234 (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Because that fact has no more relevance to the case than does the fact that her eyes were brown. The death certificate was issued and whether it is official is not at all relevant to the sequence of events. Although it's true that no other news sources have disputed that the certificate was unofficial, it's also true that no other news sources have mentioned that it is unofficial, which speaks to the relevance of that fact. Ca2james (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

It is an error of omission and weaseled at that since they mostly include-"no autopsy", which can be OR'd to reveal that it is nothing but a piece of paper and incomplete. Of course the issuing of the death certificate is a main point of the article and the case, but the FACT that the certificate is not official also pertains. And i contend that The Mercury News challenges all of the previous sources, (as per WP source) by noting that the certificate is unofficial. dead-not dead. official-unofficial. These are pretty clear terms and should not be abused for an agenda, opinion, or to create the illusion that one things "means" something else when there are clear definitions and understandings for what is up and what is down.24.0.133.234 (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Death certificates

I have removed the section discussing the death certificate as "unofficial." I can find only one source mentioning that particular claim, and no other sources have updated it. Is it still "unofficial" or has the paperwork been processed? Nobody else seems to think it matters. In any event, it seems entirely a trivial point of legalistic nitpicking, not some sort of admission or proof that McMath is not dead. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The Mercury News citation and article information that you rm is one secondary source that is available. California legal code would be a primary source,(to illustrate the invalidity of the death certificate) and although primary sources are allowed on WP, I didn't want to include it in the article at this point because it could be considered original research, since no one is saying that the Coroner DID NOT issue a death certificate.

I'd also add here that almost EVERY sourced article that speaks to this death certificate, also points-out that the certificate is "incomplete"-because there has been no autopsy, or cause of death entered. If California is like most states, the death of children under the age of 15, usually REQUIRES that an autopsy or cause of death be entered on such a certificate to make it VALID.

I don't know of any "proof" that McMath is not brain-dead. i never said that she wasn't, and there are no arguments or implications that she is not brain-dead. I don't understand your point.
24.0.133.234 (talk) 19:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for indenting your first paragraph and the indents really do improve readability and help to keep track of the discussion. Note that each paragraph in your answer must be prefixed with the requisite number of ':'s for each one to be indented.

Every source says that the death certificate has been issued and only one source says that the death certificate is unofficial. As above, the fact that the death certificate is unofficial isn't relevant; the point is that it was issued with a date of death. A discussion of the officialness of the death certificate has no place in this article.

The point was that there's no proof that she is not dead, which is what you seem to be seeking. Whether you agree that she's brain-dead isn't the issue here; it's your disbelief that she is dead. Ca2james (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

TY for the hint. Sorry I always have a little trouble with that but you explained it so I think I get it.

I am not looking for proof that she is "not dead"-or to be more in line with that which is publicly known about the case, that she was "not dead"-when she was released from the hospital.

I am trying to find proof that she "was" dead when she was released. Not just legally, irreversibly brain-dead. What is so hard to understand about "physically"-dead? If someone can be one kind of dead-(legally brain-dead), that means that there MUST always follow other kinds. It is like the rule that a list of things, always can include other things.24.0.133.234 (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining what you're looking for and what you've been trying to do. I see now where you're coming from.

If you don't accept that brain death IS death, it will be difficult for you to accept that she was dead when she was released and there will be no way to prove it to you. For myself, it's easy to accept that her body was dead because the brain controls the body and while we can artificially animate or replace different organs, we can't animate or replace the brain. Since her brain is dead and without mechanical intervention her organs would cease to function, in my mind she's dead. It used to be that medicine only recognized death as being when the heart stopped but that was before the heart and lungs could be kept on artificial support.

As for your claim that if there is one kind of thing there must be necessarily be others, well, that's logically false. Having one thing does not guarantee the existence of another thing. Ca2james (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

TY for trying to understand! It is a question of semantics and rhetoric for me at this point I guess. And as far as WP is concerned, aiming for neutrality in the article. The question of "dead or not really all-the-way dead" IS the case really, that is where the argument is mostly along-with parent's rights, legal rights, medical rights to not give futile treatment, and some other points, but yes, on the Brain-death vs cardiac death, that is where i'd like to see the article nuteralised, while maintaining the fact that it is a dispute in the case itself.24.0.133.234 (talk) 21:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The way I see it, you disagree with current medical and legal conventions regarding brain death. The article currently conforms to current those current conventions and language regarding brain death and death. The point of the case is that the family disagrees with those conventions. All that is covered in the article . The case is noteworthy precisely because it's a case that challenges conventions, but those conventions haven't changed. If the wording in the article was changed to reflect your semantic suggestions, it would give undue WP:WEIGHT to very limited, non-conventional, minority views and the article would not. Do you see this? Ca2james (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Now You've done it!

Anyone know why this has reverted back to Jahi McMath? I don't even want to try fixing that.24.0.133.234 (talk) 19:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

See above section, Move to Jahi McMath case. An editor felt that the move was made too hastily, without adequate time to reach consensus, and reverted the move. Funcrunch (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)