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)

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)

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))

I agree that there's a need for the "Related cases" section to provide context. I also think that the article could use some additional context by including a summary discussion on brain death and the current medical and legal opinions regarding it. I'm willing to do all that but I'm waiting for the other issues to be settled so that I only have to fight battles on a single front at a time. Ca2james (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I also agree that breaking the article into more sections may make it better and also that there is no rush to do that. The case is ongoing but in the meantime looking at other legal case articles might give some helpful ideas?24.0.133.234 (talk) 16:25, 27 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

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved per unanimous consensus. Xoloz (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

---

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)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)

Whether it's a true fact or not, I agree with NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) in the Death certificates section below that "no one else seems to think it matters [and that] it seems entirely a trivial point of legalistic nitpicking." It is already stated that it is incomplete because the cause of death is missing. Ca2james (talk) 15:53, 25 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)

The conventions were changed. That was the outcome of the court rulings. California had no mandate that a family or patient had legal input in deciding what to do with a patient diagnosed with irreversible brain-death. New Jersey law does-so if this had happened in NJ, it would have been a non-issue. But it is/was an issue in California because the hospital legally had/has the legal rights.

As far as viewpoints going one way or the other, and my semantic/grammatical ideas as far as WP is concerned, my intention is neutrality. And also to avoid confusion or misunderstanding by using the complete and correct terms as they apply to the case. Although I am not personally offended by using the term, "life support", there are other ways to phrase this that lead to neutrality and less confusion with one "side" or the other-"mechanical ventilation"...I have admitted to curiosity and confusion about this case and the issues which have been raised, but as far as editing WP, the article- the only viewpoint that I can take is a neutral one. This campaign to force the issue that the child is or was "dead" , should be relegated to issues having to do with the case but not decided one way or the other as far as WP is concerned. Jahi has been legally declared to have irreversible brain-death as per UDD, "dead donor law", and other criteria but some of those words are modifiers which leave the option of being "not deceased" open.24.0.133.234 (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Conventions have not changed. There's been only a few challenges but no laws have changed and so it is premature to suggest that this case is a watershed one. Your definition of "neutral" does not apply here. Do you see this? Ca2james (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

For the purposes of this article and this discussion, "my" definition of neutral is Wikipedia's definition-WP:NPOV sorry for any confusion there. 24.0.133.234 (talk) 16:37, 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)

Yeah-I was just wondering since the move did not appear in the article history how (manual or by some kind of bot or?) it was moved and if that was a mistake or not? After 7 days, and when does the 7 days begin, from the last time that the article was moved, or does someone have to manually decide?24.0.133.234 (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Moved to the ICU first

Jahi was in the ICU before she started bleeding. From this reference, "But about a half-hour later, shortly after the girl was taken to the intensive care unit, she began bleeding from her mouth and nose despite efforts by hospital staff and her family." (emphasis added).

The reason she was in the ICU before she started bleeding is that she had been scheduled to be there after the surgery; from the court documents: "Following this surgical procedure, Ms. McMath was admitted, as planned, to Children’s’s Pediatric Intensive Care Unit, where she suffered serious complications resulting in a tragic outcome—her death." Ca2james (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Death=cadaver vs Death=irreversible legal brain death

I opened this section because I have a question about the terms used in this article, but discussion of "legal brain death" which I think should only be used in the article as it pertains or relates to the Jahi Mcmath case itself, but otherwise should probably NOT be included in the article-(because they are related to brain death and death in general. In the state of California, where this case occurred, there is a legal and apparently medical paradigm shift, related to those terms which is not globally accepted.
https://www.jotnw.or.jp/english/05.html -Japan for instance. The link is the organ transplant organization of Japan. Here is what they say;

Views on Brain Death

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), only a few countries such as Pakistan and Romania do not recognize brain death as human death. In Japan, while the Organ Transplant Law in enacted, brain death is acknowledged as human death only when a transplant is to be performed. This interpretation remains unchanged, even after thre rivision of the Act.

"Brain Death" refers to a condition in which the functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem that controls respiration, are irreversibly lost due to occurrences such as head trauma and cerebral apoplexy. The advent of respirators made it possible to temporarily maintain the heart beat even after the loss of cerebral functions, but the heart will eventually stop beating in a few days. (bold is mine for contradictions that again SHOULD NOT be in the Jahi McMath case article unless they specifically apply to the case)

I used the word "cadaver" as a sub-heading for a reason. Apparently in Japan, organ transplant from what they call "cadavers" is different than organ transplant from "legally brain dead"-persons. In Japan, most organ transplants of vital organs from dead people, are of the "cadaver"-variety. I'm only posting this section to try and show why striving for WPNOV neutrality in the article is not a "fringe"-as it has been stated upthread, or even a minority opinion. Part of the arguments in this case DO relate to whether Jahi McMath is dead or not.

I also find mixed research about "what happens" to people diagnosed with irreversible brain death. The Japan organ donor site says that the heart will stop beating in a few days. In this case, objections have been raised about referring to the girl as a "dead body" or "corpse", and there also seems to be mixed medical opinion here with some professional literature saying that these brain dead people's hearts cannot function with machines for more than a few days, weeks, or decades depending on which article is used. The opinion of "brain dead" as a corpse or dead body--is shocking because it paints a picture of animating a dead and decaying corpse. -When this DOESN'T REALLY seem to have ANY research to back it up-(could this be because they "pull the plug", so there are no subjects to research??).................while long-term survival and maintenance of people described as brain-dead CAN be determined.-The questions raised in this case became even MORE interesting because of the other case in Texas when the question of keeping a brain dead mother alive in order to maintain her unborn child occurred at the same time. Further research of that case, showed that there are cases where pregnancies have been maintained on these brain dead mothers for over a hundred days, and in some of those cases, after the mother died, her organs were donated with healthy outcomes for the recipients, (meaning that those organs were NOT in a state of decomposition after longer term mechanical support). -

There are some of the questions that lead me as a user to read this article. Trying to learn how the Jahi McMath case fits in with all of this, and this was after reading most of the news articles and being personally surprised at the variety of opinions expressed by commenters in articles. (I was surprised at the opinions and comments that went with the "corpse"-description, and some were very adamant and expressed a strong opinion that the opposite of their opinion-that Jahi McMath is a living human being, was morally, legally and ethically incomprehensible to their "dead dead" opinion.

OK I'm rambling here a little but there are some questions that users like myself may be seeking to answer by reading the article, and not all of them apply to this case but are derived from this case and we can only wait for them to be answered. My main question was "why are so many commenters and bloggers and even the tone of some news articles saying that keeping Jahi McMath on life support is equal to trying to keep a corpse alive. Why are they saying that the only course of events for irreversible brain death is for immediate decomposition and decay of a dead body. And does irreversible brain death diagnoses ALWAYS mean that or not? Other research shows that brain-dead patients grow, heal, and many other bodily functions that could only mean "dead" to someone who is not using their own brain to think. (sorry i had to get that in there just to show how incomprehensible these questions are to myself-can the answer be BOTH ? or maybe not so absolute as either side thinks).
24.0.133.234 (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Posting this here as a reference to a case of chronic brain death that lasted over 20 years http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16970850 Long survival following bacterial meningitis-associated brain destruction. Repertinger S1, Fitzgibbons WP, Omojola MF, Brumback RA. Author information Abstract

This report describes the brain autopsy of a boy who at age 4(1/2) years experienced an episode of fulminant Haemophilus influenzae type b bacterial meningitis, resulting in massive brain destruction and the clinical signs of brain death. However, medical intervention maintained him for an additional two decades.-The pdf. is available for free online but I don't have a link to that sorry.
Also see the most recent article, but mainly the comments section where confusion and curiosity about this case continues.http://www.nationalreview.com/human-exceptionalism/371937/jahi-mcmath-mother-owes-no-apology-wesley-j-smith a lot of questions there and misinformed statements and opinions about whether Jahi McMath is truly deceased or not
24.0.133.234 (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

This talk page is not a discussion forum to debate brain death. Per discussions at the BLP noticeboard we already revised the lede and removed the infobox to address your concerns that the verb tense and death date listing were not in keeping with WP:NPOV. You are the only editor on this talk page arguing that this article is still not NPOV. What more do you want at this point? Funcrunch (talk) 01:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with what you say, but the debate about brain-death is a central element of the case. I started this section to add references that apply to this case, but that are "too" centered around the brain-death debate issue. Maybe the article needs a section called debate about brain death in this case? And/or trying to keep the material in the proposed section strictly related to the Jahi McMath case? There are other elements that could be expanded or given sections as well. Legal questions about her age and how that affects it. Questions about if the death certificate is valid or a section on how the death certificate is unofficial? (I have another reference for that somewhere too an article where the family is directly questioned about a death certificate and they are quoted as saying that they have not received one or something like that )...And discussion about Jahi McMath being referred-to as a decaying corpse while she was in the hospital which is clearly misinformation.
What more I want is to make the article useful to Wikipedia users who are reading the article to make sense of the abundant dis and misinformation that has been reported on this case.
24.0.133.234 (talk) 02:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Your view of what is "dis and misinformation" in this case is clearly biased. You accuse other editors of censorship while simultaneously making edits such as this one that, besides being ungrammatical, misstate the actual wording in the referenced article. (That article said "declared brain-dead", not "diagnosed with irreversible brain dead".) If you're going to insist that other editors include only claims borne out by the sources (as with the pending autopsy for the death certificate), you need to follow the same rules yourself. Funcrunch (talk) 17:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Ethics

I'm not interested in an edit war, but I didn't see a source that indicated the specific doctors who treated Jahi McMath voiced ethical objections, but rather the hospital indicated no ethical obligation to treat brain dead individual. I realize there are numerous ethics issues in this case, but the statement, "the ethical objections of her doctors" didn't seem supported by the references.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The doctors indicated ethical objections to treating a brain-dead person. Four refs is plenty. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

None of those four references state that the specific doctors who treated Jahi McMath voiced ethical objections. They may have, but the statement "the ethical objections of her doctors" is not currently supported by any of the references cited.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I have re-read the court documents posted in the article and one that was not and I don't see any "ethical objections" either. Have any hospital spokespersons or medical personal involved in the case gone on the record with ethical objections? Where are they? We could either delete the term or tag it with a "says who?" tag if no reference is found. I did find many legal objections in the court records-mainly that they are not legally bound to treat a patient who has been diagnosed with irreversible brain-death24.0.133.234 (talk) 02:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC).

I'm going to boldly revert. That was not "her doctors" who raised the "ethical" objections. It was an article by random bioethicists and doctors right?-(the referenced article, so yeah that probably does not belong in the lede because it is random doctors with their take on the case, it does apply directly to the case but I don't know where to put it and if there is a good fit for it somewhere else i will not object to keeping as a reference)24.0.133.234 (talk) 03:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC) I left the ref as-is and reverted the previous editor's change of rm one word "ethical" in "ethical objections of her doctors". I didn't have the ♥ to delete the USA Today article because it was an extremely biased (full of misinformation and unanswered questions, like why doesn't the author address her sources as "DR"(doctor) it would appear that NO doctors were interviewed in the article as the title suggests-where are the doctors?? but interesting look at the case with a lot of, (probably biased as well! links at the end of the article)-it should probably be moved but i don't know where.24.0.133.234 (talk) 03:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The phrase in question has been in the article for more than a week, and thus your removal is the "bold" action here. I have reverted your bold removal and request that you discuss it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is another reference, if you would like. The question of when to discontinue medical treatment is, by definition, a bioethical question - and the idea that providing medical treatment to a dead body is not an ethical use of medical care is similarly rooted in bioethics. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand how long it's been in place being relevant. Seems unreferenced text should not be included. With regards to discussion, personally, I zero objection to including it, once it is properly referenced, but believe it should only be included if it is properly referenced. None of the sources cited support claim that the specific doctors who treated Jahi McMath voiced ethical objections. Seems the text regarding "her doctors" should deleted until or unless we can find a source for it, so reverted to 24.0.133.234 version. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes-of course I am making a bold edit! "Accusing" me of that is like accusing me of trying to edit Wikipedia lol! Sorry that you don't understand but the original removal of the word "ethical" from that sentence is the correct thing to do here.24.0.133.234 (talk) 14:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

To be precise, it is not the girl's attending physicians who have expressed either ethical reservations or objections; it's the hospital, as per this court filing (pdf), section F. One possible wording of the statement could be, "The Jahi McMath case centers on a 13-year-old girl in California who was declared brain-dead following surgery, her family's rejection of the medicolegal finding of death in this case and attempts to maintain her body on mechanical ventilation, and the ethical objections of the hospital to maintaining her body." Ca2james (talk) 16:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that you have something there! A primary reference, which is allowed, and it explicitly offers "ethical" objection-(see where it refers to keeping Jahi's body alive as "grotesque"? Looks like an ethical evaluation to me). Using it in the lede though? I'm not so sure. And DEFINITELY agree that any phrasing of this "ethical" objections related to this case should be attributed properly. "Hospital", or even "Hospital's lawyers" lol is correct here.24.0.133.234 (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I think we can dispense with specifying the hospital's lawyers and just stick with the hospital :) Could we say "ethical objections of the hospital" without references in the lede (since it's a summary of the text to come) and then discuss those objections with refs to the court docs later in the text? Ca2james (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that but maybe say "ethical and legal objections of the Children's Hospital (naming the hospital)"?24.0.133.234 (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2014

(UTC)-OH OOPS, why not include the cite? I don't have a problem putting back "ethical" if there is a ref.24.0.133.234 (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I thought to not include the cite because you objected to having one in the lede. I think specifying "hospital" is enough for the lede since it's a summary as long as Children's Hospital of Oakland is included later on in the article (which I don't think it is, at present). After all, we're not specifying the exact surgery in the lede, either - it's specified later. Ca2james (talk) 18:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

It seems the sources are clear in stating the hospital felt they were under no ethical obligation to continue medical treatment for a patient declared brain dead. I haven't seen a source that clearly indicates that Children's Hospital Oakland stated they had specific ethical objections to such continued treatment. I've read multiple opinion pieces from other unconnected doctors who have voiced ethical objections, but only publicly released statement I've seen from Children's Hospital Oakland is about lack of ethical obligation and not about specific ethical objections.

Maybe the statement could be reworded something like this:

The Jahi McMath case centers on a 13-year-old girl in California who was declared brain-dead following surgery, her family's rejection of the medicolegal finding of death in this case and attempts to maintain her body on mechanical ventilation, and the position of the hospital which was they were under no ethical obligation to provide the requested treatment because the patient had been diagnosed with irreversible brain-death"--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

That would be inappropriate. The sources are clear that the hospital feels that it is unethical to continue treating a dead body, not that they are "under no ethical obligation" to continue treatment. Part F of the hospital's legal document: "Surgery on a dead body is contrary to the ethics of the medical profession." "After considering all of the issues, the Ethics Committee unanimously concluded that it is inappropriate to subject a deceased person’s body to medically and ethically inappropriate interventions, and that the hospital and Ms. McMath’s health care providers should not be compelled to do so." page 14. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I have reworded to make clear the entire debate is a question of bioethics. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no objection to current wording. Added additional ref to help cover other side of this bioethical debate. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Autopsy?

Not trying to cause trouble but after checking the entire text of the cited reference there was no mention of an "autopsy". That sentence had to go.24.0.133.234 (talk) 16:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I added a reference that clearly states the death certificate was incomplete pending an autopsy. Funcrunch (talk) 17:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Schiavo network award

I have removed the statement regarding the Schiavo Network award for the family because I don't see the relevance to the case involving Jahi McMath. How is it relevant that this particular foundation will be giving this family an unnamed award for no reason in particular and that the family will accept this award? Ca2james (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "the case" encompasses. It was a recent news item about (not the "legal" case), but "the case" in general. As-in an update to the situation. Also another editor had attempted to add it but it was deleted as "vandalism". Since I could see what the accused vandal was trying to get at, I decided to go ahead and add w/reference. It is not an unnamed award but I was in a rush and decided to add and let other editors fix it however they want or not. I'm not sure if deleting is appropriate or not.24.0.133.234 (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

This is what was deleted. I say it applies to the case because the award was for what the family did legally, (the "case").

On Feb. 27, 2014, the Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Network, announced that Jahi McMath's family are the recipients of an annual award and stated that the family will accept the honor.

I deleted the previous mention because it came from an IP user, had no context, and had no sources.

The lede summarizes the page and describes the content of the page. The sentence you added has nothing to do with the page. When you do your edits in a rush and fail to provide any connection or context for something that appears irrelevant, it's reasonable to expect that your edit will be reverted.

You still haven't answered my question: How is it relevant that this particular foundation will be giving this family an unnamed award for no reason in particular and that the family will accept this award? Filling in all the blanks would be helpful, as would talking about WHY this is relevant on this page. Ca2james (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it seems relevant to the case, but I'm not sure it should be the closing mention. The rationale for the award, as stated by the Schiavo foundation seems to make it relevant. Foundation stated this award honors an individual or family who "fights to protect the dignity of a loved one against overwhelming odds" and the award to the McMath family "recognizes the unconditional love they have for Jahi, and their courage as they continue the fight for their daughter against overwhelming odds". This seems to add balance to the ethical debate that makes this case so interesting. There's the hospital's viewpoint that this is "grotesque" and unethical, but from the viewpoint of the McMath family & and their supporters, they are protecting what they see as life against overwhelming odds.

Maybe mention of this award could be fit in something like this:

"…the family moved the girl to an undisclosed location and inserted a tracheostomy and feeding tube.[28] In Feburary 2014, the Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Network announced that Jahi McMath's family are the recipients of an annual award. The award recognizes "the unconditional love they have for Jahi, and their courage as they continue the fight against overwhelming odds" As of February 20, 2014, Jahi’s mother continues to maintain that Jahi is alive and "not a dead body."--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

That works for me. The context and relevance are clearly established. Thanks, BoboMeowCat! Ca2james (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Works for me too. And Ca2james you should be thanked as well for the great and meticulous work that you did with the citations. 24.0.133.234 (talk) 00:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)24.0.133.234 (talk) 00:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Hospital refused to provide care for a dead body

24.0.133.234 (talk) the hospital specifically refused to operate on a dead body. Removing the phrase "dead body" from the statement because you don't think the body is dead misrepresents the hospital's view and is an edit against the consensus that was developed. I have undone your change. Ca2james (talk) 22:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

OK-they do say that and more in their (primary source) court petitions. They don't exactly word it like that though but throughout the hospital's explanation they go as far as they can to misinform the fact about whether or not Jahi McMath had a "dead body", or was diagnosed with irreversible legally defined brain-death. That petition was DENIED ultimately from the way that I understand it(?). I don't think that we can treat what they say in their own legal pleadings as FACT here-can we? Maybe contrasting that statement with one from the other side here? See how they worded it in the beginning of this legal doc. issued on their behalf from their lawyers---

"...legally meritless attempt to compel Children’s to perform surgical procedures upon the body of Jahi McMath, deceased."............It does not say the "dead body", it says that she is "deceased"-(mis-informing with a nod to the legal definition of irreverible brain-death). Notice how the doc says things like (paraphrase)" How can someone ask us to operate-on and maintain a dead body, that would be gross?"--WITHOUT saying that Jahi McMath has a "dead body", just going along sprinkling in "dead", "deceased"-wherever the term irreversible BRAIN DEATH would be more correct, like I think we should have it in the WP article for this case. Not using the slanted one-sided terms which one side in the case is using to exploit their contentions. 24.0.133.234 (talk) 01:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)24.0.133.234 (talk) 01:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Just to add a little about using primary sources, (court documents) in the article, and why I keep mentioning it. I'm not so sure that we are using them correctly here. This WP opinion explains it a little For instance, a published official court transcript of witness evidence would pass the minimum criteria of reliability for use as a source in Wikipedia. Quotes from such sources can be used to illustrate the position or perspective of the witness. The transcript (while it is a primary source) can not be used as a basis to present the slant (opinion, perspective, position, observations...) of the witness as "fact". That is, unless a reliable secondary or tertiary source (for instance a judge's verdict, or a generally accepted history book written after conclusion of the court case) does so. And then the currently accepted explanation at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources on the No Original research page. Linking this here fro myself and anyone who wants to have a look.24.0.133.234 (talk) 01:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

AND jftr, the docs that we have been adding, although I personally think they add tremendous value to the article as references, are not even on the same level as a court transcript or even a ruling. They are one-sided pleadings from parties in litigation and as Wikipedians we cannot imply that there is anything factual about those documents except for the fact that they exist.24.0.133.234 (talk) 01:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Your edit saying that the hospital "lost the motion" was unsourced and untrue. The referenced document was provided for a scheduled trial that never took place, because the hospital released McMath to the coroner on January 5, two days before the scheduled start of the trial. Stop making edits that are not backed up by the sources you are referencing. Funcrunch (talk) 02:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

OK-they dropped that motion because they lost on that point. I think that this article needs a bullet-point timeline to make it less confusing for editors and readers.24.0.133.234 (talk) 02:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify-the hospital said that they don't want to operate on "A" dead body. They didn't say that they didn't want to operate on Jahi McMath's (undead) body. Personally if I were the judge i would have b-slapped them just for the liberties that were taken trying to imply that their patient's "body" was as allegedly deceased as her legally declared diagnosed cerebellum.24.0.133.234 (talk) 02:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, there's a reason you aren't a judge. Jahi McMath is legally dead. She is no longer alive, by medical and legal standards. The judge did, in fact, rule that Jahi is dead under California law. 174.253.241.1 (talk) 02:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with was she legally dead. I'm disagreeing about whether her body is or was dead at that point. And that WP should not take sides either way.24.0.133.234 (talk) 02:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The only person using the term "irreversible brain death" is you, 24.0.133.234 (talk), and it's not appropriate to be included in this article because it is WP:OR and WP:NPOV. You have brought this up before and the reasons for not changing the term have been explained to you several times, as have the reasons for using the terms that are used. At this point your insistence that reliably-sourced, commonly-used terms are not neutral and that your term is correct is a clear case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and is starting to become disruptive.

The only petitions entered by the hospital that were denied were the ones to end the temporary restraining order. This petition was not denied. Instead, the parties entered into a settlement conference where, among other things, they agreed that the hospital would not have to perform the requested surgeries. Even if the petition had been denied, this source establishes the hospital's position with respect to this issue, and the sentence in question describes that position. Of course it's a one-sided view.

The petition reference uses both 'dead body' and 'deceased body' but 'dead body' is used more often. There are six instances of 'dead body' in the petition (excluding the table of contents): (emphasis added)

• "Ordering invasive surgical procedures upon a dead body goes far beyond the typical preliminary injunction designed to preserve the status quo." (Introduction)
• "It Would be Legally Unprecedented and Macabre to Attempt to Compel Surgery on a Dead Body." (Section B, title)
• "Frankly, the burden on Ms. Winkfield here is unfathomably heavy as she asks this Court to compel a hospital to perform surgery on her daughter’s dead body." (Section D)
• "Plaintiff does not even attempt to meet the substantial burden required to invoke a mandatory injunction to compel Children’s Hospital to perform surgeries on Jahi McMath’s dead body. " (Section D) (note Jahi McMath's dead body is specified here)
• "The cases offer no support for the extraordinary relief sought here to perform surgery on a dead body." (Section E)
• "Surgery on a dead body is contrary to the ethics of the medical profession" (Section F)

• There is exactly one instance of 'deceased body' in the petition: (emphasis added)

• "Ms. Winkfield offers no authority that suggests her right to compel surgery upon her daughter’s deceased body is "clearly established" or "clearly favored." (Section D)

Therefore, the term 'dead body' clearly describes the hospital's position and so can be used to state that position. Even if this is a primary source.

I'm planning a bit of rework to the article to add some more information about Paul Byrne (your information was wildly incorrect), the various courts the family applied to, and the settlement conference. Because I know that primary sources are valid but discouraged, I'll be using secondary sources where possible. Ca2james (talk) 02:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm responding in the correct place here if not please excuse me. Dang-the hospital's legal position DID explicitly, (and I maintain it was erroneous but I would not allow the article to display my opinion)- call Jahi McMath a "dead body". But please let me explain (in italics if no one minds) where they explicitly did say this, and where they used tricky rhetorical device to create a false impression. I'm also bolding where they implied that McMath was the "dead person" that they were referring-to:

• IMPLIED"Ordering invasive surgical procedures upon a dead body goes far beyond the typical preliminary injunction designed to preserve the status quo." (Introduction) (they did NOT refer to the subject Jahi McMath here as being the "dead body" that they mean. Otherwise it would have said so: Ordering invasive surgical procedures upon (who's?) dead body. "A" dead body could mean a corpse dug up from the ground which is exactly the picture they are trying to paint here.

• "IMPLIEDIt Would be Legally Unprecedented and Macabre to Attempt to Compel Surgery on a Dead Body." (Section B, title) same thing only a little creepier and worse allusions to ZOMBIES perhaps? Not to mention that IF Jahi had been an organ donor would they care to admit how "macabre" it would be for a transplant team to surgically operate on her (still living in her case) body (rhetorical, their bad).

• "Frankly, the burden on Ms. Winkfield here is unfathomably heavy as she asks this Court to compel a hospital to perform surgery on her daughter’s dead body." OK-They DID say dead body there and they called out Jahi McMath's mother to directly and explicitly say it. Still this is one-side in a litigated dispute(Section D)

• "Plaintiff does not even attempt to meet the substantial burden required to invoke a mandatory injunction to compel Children’s Hospital to perform surgeries on Jahi McMath’s dead body. " (Section D) (note Jahi McMath's dead body is specified here) Agreed that they did it again. The opposing side has also objected to this incorrect characterization attempt.

• IMPLIED?"The cases offer no support for the extraordinary relief sought here to perform surgery on a dead body." (Section E) If the cases means the Jahi McMath cases, they did it AGAIN?, wow. There are opinions-the other side in this case specifically which dispute referring to the girl as a "dead body" but the hospital has done it directly several times here.

IMPLIED*"Surgery on a dead body is contrary to the ethics of the medical profession" (Section F) Who'd dead body? All dead bodies, even organ donors?-that's not very nice.And, OH wait-some of those brain-dead vital organ donors are physically alive. Sure that some professionals would differ there and are they trying to say "Surgery on Jahi McMath's body" is contrary to the ethics of the medical profession? Why didn't they just say that? I don't know who should be fired, but this document is losing credibility pretty fast.

• There is exactly one instance of 'deceased body' in the petition: (emphasis added) there is another IMPLIED use of the word deceased though they used the term deceased here:"legally meritless attempt to compel Children’s to perform surgical procedures upon the body of Jahi McMath, deceased." to imply that she was a dead body without correctly stating that she was "legally" deceased and only "allegedly" a deceased body. At least we can do better on Wikipedia and spell out exactly what is meant.

• "Ms. Winkfield offers no authority that suggests her right to compel surgery upon her daughter’s deceased body is "clearly established" or "clearly favored." (Section D) They did it again! OK-I'm going to check out the specific sections. This is a highly incorrect and biased legal pleading.

Thanks for breaking that down. I didn't realize they had so blatantly tried to get-away with all of that. No wonder they took it off the table. 24.0.133.234 (talk) 06:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Make sure to include that both parties agreed to select from a list of five local qualified doctors, and that all five refused to participate! Good luck with that. I'll be right behind you lol. Seriously-i am being a stickler with "irreversible" legally declared brain-death for a reason. We're using medical and legal terms here-and I've already confessed to not being an expert on the correct format of legal articles, but medical pages always include the most precise terms. For instance-people experience varying degrees of brain death every day. Some don't even notice it! That does not mean that their body is necessarily dead. Some have catastrophic/fatal-(not just "legally fatal") results and their bodies expire. Being as specific to the Jahi McMath case is the only way to deal with the medical terms here to avoid misinformation and clashing with other conditions which do not apply to this case. Adding extra words to help clarify the article doesn't cost us anything and helps to make it correct.I resent the accusation that I am being disruptive here btw.24.0.133.234 (talk) 03:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

This seems to be more WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. It seems that you're bound and determined to make this article conform to your views and your WP:OR terminology (which in no way conforms to accepted medical terminology) and that it's your way on this article or nothing. You've posted huge comments regarding your beliefs on this talk page as though it were a discussion forum. All this behaviour does come across as disruptive. Ca2james (talk) 03:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Just to add - I know you want to make this the best possible article, just like I do, and I'm sure you're not actively trying to be disruptive. It's just that your actions are speaking out here and it seems that we're moving away from consensus instead of towards it. When it comes down to it, I'm sure you're as frustrated as I am! I'd like to be able to work with you on this instead of constantly feeling like I'm butting heads with you. How can we do this? Ca2james (talk) 03:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems that in the context used, "dead body" is the proper phrase because that is what the hospital actually called her (in the referenced court doc and in press releases). To balanced this, maybe mentioning objection to this terminology could be included somewhere. Jahi's mother has gone on record objecting to this terminology as inaccurate description and insensitive.

http://gma.yahoo.com/jahi-mcmath-brain-dead-girl-39-mom-says-234950235--abc-news-topstories.html

--BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, her mother's objection is noted in the article, based on the cited source, we quote that her mother believes Jahi is alive and not a dead body. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I was actually referring to a different objection. In the above article, Jahi's mother objected to them calling her "the body" instead of using her name. Seems they could maintain she was brain dead and still use her name, so it's not the exact same issue. Also, above I was talking about the reference to the court document re not treating a "dead body". That use of "dead body" seems entirely appropriate to me, but I don't really understand why it is necessary to say they released Jahi McMath's body vs just released Jahi McMath. Seems a bit redundant. We already know the hospital views her as a dead body, and it's not like anyone is going to think they released something other than a body, which the hospital maintains is dead and family maintains is alive. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Help requested

Just to let you guys know, I have requested assistance with this article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Law#Help_please_with_Jahi_McMath_case_article I'm not really comfortable editing a "legal" article, although I do have opinions about the article and the topic and how I think it should look, I don't want to do a bunch of editing and arguing back and forth with you guys to only learn that we are not conforming to the WP standards expected of a legal-type article.24.0.133.234 (talk) 02:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources, NPOV and FRINGE

Describing Jahi McMath as dead and her body being transferred is entirely in keeping with the requirement that Wikipedia give greatest prominence to the viewpoints which are given the most credence in reliable sources. The legal ruling is, in many ways, controlling as well. The view that someone whose brain is dead is alive is, at best, a fringe theory with little to no support among the medical and scientific communities - because the brain controls virtually every natural biological function of a human being. Not to be grotesque, but without a brain we are merely a collection of independent cells. McMath's body is destined now for a prolonged decline, decay and failure. It is impossibly tragic that this has happened, but the medical fact remains: Jahi is dead and not coming back.

Of particular note is the breathing test. Breathing is, of course, one of the most basal and critical functions of the brain. The body cannot survive without an exchange of gases across the lungs. Control of that function is rooted in the deepest recesses of the brain stem, and anyone with even catastrophic brain injuries whose brain stem survives, will attempt to breathe - triggered by internal regulation and autonomic monitoring of carbon dioxide and oxygen levels in the blood. Even those with serious spinal injuries *try* to breathe - they need ventilators because they cannot control the thoracic muscles that power inhalation and exhalation. According to the chief of pediatric neurology of one of America's finest teaching hospitals, when withdrawn from the ventilator Jahi showed no signs of any autonomic response. The most basal portions of her brain have ceased to function.

Describing the state of affairs as rooted in science, medicine and law, while also describing her family's contrary (and minority) view is the essence of NPOV. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I support the use of "dead" and the use of "body" being transferred. According to California law, she is brain death is death and she is dead. Not using "dead" or "body" in the article would violate WP:NPOV. The view that she isn't dead is definitely WP:FRINGE and is described by the actions of the mother and lawyer. Ca2james (talk) 03:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

And i have to respectfully disagree. Legally dead according to the state of California and the standards set by UDD-(uniform declaration of death), but her bodily functions remain so a core argument of the case is that she is not dead-just, "legally dead" due to a diagnoses of irreversible brain-death. We wouldn't want readers to become confused between the criteria of brain-death and irreversible brain-death would we? i have experienced it myself and it was not that bad. Anesthesiologists therapeutically cause the same effects that are known as brain-death all the time. It is the "irreversible" kind that will legally allow your living body to become an organ donor.24.0.133.234 (talk) 03:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, if you are seriously claiming that going under anesthesia is "brain death" and that you've experienced brain death yourself, then there is no way that you are editing this article from a neutral point of view. As Ca2james said in a section above, you are clearly exhibiting disruptive behavior. Funcrunch (talk) 04:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand the objection to the reference in the court document which states the hospital refused to treat a "dead body", because that is literally what they referred to her as. However, I can somewhat see the objection to the statement toward the end regarding her "body" being transferred. Phrasing it that way could be interpreted as us having sided with the hospital's stance, and this Wikipedia article is supposed to be neutral and not take the hospital's side or the family's side but rather present them both via reliable sources. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 04:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• BoboMeowCatI answered the other part of your question uppage in the section Hospital refused to provide care for a dead body under the bullet-points where Ca2james kindly extracted references and implied references of Jahi McMath as physically dead.24.0.133.234 (talk) 07:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

TY for understanding. Yes that is exactly how it looked to me as well.24.0.133.234 (talk) 05:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

No. When presented with competing claims, as in this case, Wikipedia articles should be written so as to give due weight to those competing claims in accordance with their prominence in mainstream thought, presenting the mainstream viewpoint as predominant. The overwhelming mainstream viewpoint is that Jahi is dead. Her family's competing claims should be - and are - mentioned in this article, but they are accordingly given less prominence and credence. It is entirely appropriate to describe Jahi as dead while mentioning her family's claim to the contrary. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the undue weight clause means the writers of a Wikipedia article should clearly take a side, even if that side is the mainstream view. I think what you are referring to would apply if we were to get into the medical debate about brain death, and then we failed to indicate those in medical community who object to brain death as true death hold the minority view and we gave that minority view more mention. But in terms of neutrality, I don't think we should clearly take the hospital's side or the family's side while writing this article. I can see from your statement above you have clearly taken the hospital's side, but I don't think we should put that sort of viewpoint into the article, but rather just present the arguments presented via reliable sources. If we wrote "released Jahi McMath", those who think she is dead (which might very well be most people) will interpret that as the dead body named Jahi McMath, and those who think she is alive will interpret it as the still alive person named Jahi McaMath. It does seem more neutral that way. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 05:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, that is exactly what it means. For example, see the Wikipedia article of any convicted criminal. Even if that criminal asserts their innocence, we describe them as a convicted criminal guilty of the crime. We will describe their claims to innocence, but those claims are subordinated to the legal fact of their conviction.

Certified doctors have declared that Jahi McMath is dead, and a competent court of law has examined that declaration, independently tested it and ruled it to be (tragically) correct. It is the mainstream, predominant viewpoint and Wikipedia must reflect that viewpoint. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Er, uh, no, anesthesia does not create brain death. Anesthesia acts to strongly depress the central nervous system, temporarily halting much normal brain activity. It does not lead to the biological death of brain cells. That's a medical fact, and your belief to the contrary is a fringe theory. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Also there are people with areas of brain-death who are not even aware of it and they are walking, talking...that is another reason why we need to differentiate and be precise here. There are degrees of brain-death which have no relation to this case which should be verbally distinguished.The doctors pronounced McMath "dead"--with qualifiers. Even though they have presented this giant false cognitive dissonance that her physical body has experienced permanent "death" that is no way the same as a diagnoses of irreversible brain-death. Her heart can live in another human being, how could anyone say that it is dead? Much of her body is and was alive and living and it is not a fringe theory to say that her body is not deceased just because she is semantically dead due to the law.--24.0.133.234 (talk) 07:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes i have been under medical anesthesia, before. I really don't want to get personal here-but many people have and many have been therapeutically placed in a comatose state, and in that state a person can clinically, scientifically have the EXACT SAME medical test result also know as "brain death". Many people who have survived trauma have registered as brain-dead for some time and lived to tell the story as well-not just "fringe"-people.It is the diagnoses that a patient who presents as brain-dead through scientific test results, is irreversibly destined to remain in that state that allows for a "legal" determination of brain-death, even-though their body can continue to function with a ventilator. Also, some people spontaneously experience ischemia to the brain or areas of the brain and never even notice it, but an ischemic event that results in permanent loss of whole brain and brain stem function which results in a diagnoses of irreversible loss of consciousness and permanent loss of brain and brain-stem function-(UDD standards), such is what is being alleged to have happened to McMath, is the "kind"-of brain-death that we want to specifically refer to in this article, or we should not refer to it at all. It is not a matter of opinion really it is a matter of getting the facts, the whole truth and ...so as not to side with one side or the other and avoid providing incorrect medical and scientific information to WP users.24.0.133.234 (talk) 05:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

A comatose state is not brain death, and brain death is not "alleged" to have happened to Jahi McMath - it did happen to Jahi McMath. There is absolutely no credible evidence presented by anyone that Jahi McMath's brain is not dead and to the contrary, a number of medical experts have examined her and found her to be brain-dead. There is a massive, incredible difference between someone in a persistent vegetative state and someone who has suffered complete brain death. There is no credible evidence that any person has ever recovered from complete brain death. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

People in a medically induced coma, People who have been drugged or suffered alcohol poisoning, a person who's body temp is very low..., I am saying that there are medical scientific tests, which if you showed a qualified medical professional, they would not be able to determine the difference between "temporary" test results which indicate brain-death, and irreversible brain-death tests results.(a blind study) ..............The total combined and cumulative results, which are required to pronounce a patient to be "permanently" unconscious with whole brain including brain-stem and loss of all function of the brain, are the sum of many tests, some-of which can be "positive" for brain-death in healthy or recoverable patients. And what does this have to do with her body anyways? her body can function with help. It can grow hair, heal from wounds and infections, perform normal bodily functions, even with a diagnoses of legal brain death.(ok-I don't have a reference for the hair yet but why not?) In the case of irreversibly brain-dead infants and children their bodies have been reported to have grown and matured in a more or less "healthy" way. Why can't we just leave any implication that WP is taking sides with this specific question out of the article? We don't need to mislead the readers. Not taking sides about if her body is/was dead or not is not anywhere CLOSE to saying that she will recover so you have no point and are pushing your point of view for what reason here? Why do you keep trying to equate the dead or undead state of her physical body which is in contention, with something that no editors are trying to add to the article and has nothing to do with it? "Is it possible that Jahi McMath will recover?" is what you seem to be trying to say is somehow related to not accepting a verdict of the child's physical body being "dead" when no one is challenging the fact that she has received a diagnoses of permanent brain-death with all of the legal ramifications of that-(makes someone eligible to donate a ♥ for instance)."Is it possible that Jahi has been misdiagnosed, and therefore not brain-dead?"--has not been raised in the article except for the related cases section which I think was rightfully taken-out because it just made the article more contentious and confusing at that point and i only added those references and cases because they were documented cases of brain-death misdiagnoses as opposed-to the persistent vegetative state cases which really cannot be claimed to be related to this case at this point at all. You are confusing things here by insisting that she will not recover and THAT means that her body is dead. That doesn't even make any sense.24.0.133.234 (talk) 07:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The mainstream view is that her body is dead and her brain is dead and that's exactly what the article must reflect. Your WP:OR redefinition of the term brain death has no place on this Talk page (which is WP:NOTFORUM) or in the article. Ca2james (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Feel like I'm being side-tracked with the same issue over and over and i don't want to say beating a ....

I'm wondering if I could better serve this article if I put my energies into working on an

Opinions that Jahi McMath was not a dead body when she was transferred from Children's hospital

-type section, which would require a

reasons why people mistakenly claimed that Jahi McMath was a dead person

-type section or an "opposing views" section. Or Central Debates in this case section where I could direct my energies towards finding references as they strictly apply to this case for the section that I would like to create and expand..........instead-of nit-picking throughout the article about the one issue in particular. of course i would expect the content of this proposed section(s) to be challenged and/or edited by other editors, but I really would like to add some non-"fringy" references that could help expand the article.And take the debated content to an area in the article where it is more clearly identified (both sides). Can we just split the contentious issue(s) into "the debate(s) as they pertain to this case" sections? Or is that not a good idea?24.0.133.234 (talk) 05:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm calling 3RR. I intend to change it back unless there is a good reason

With this edit, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jahi_McMath_case&diff=prev&oldid=597629600 NorthBySouthBaranof reverted an edit which NorthBySouthBaranof previously changed and/or reverted the edits of other editors-(more than one it should be noted)...in the past few days.

Since I am one of the editors whose edits were changed there, I want to make sure that when I change it again, that I am not 3RR there. It doesn't look like it to me. 24.0.133.234 (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The reason for keeping it is that it's the mainstream view and so it is correct. It appears that the one who is edit-warring is you with your repeated attempts to include non-neutral material in the article. Ca2james (talk) 22:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof also appeared to be edit warring with respect the content mentioned by 24.0.133.234. Additionally, NorthBySouthBaranof's repeated addition of statement "The court rejected the request" (which isn't supported by the current reference) seems to be in violation of the 3RR, as this statement has been restored 3 times in past few hours. If I delete it again, I will probably be in violation of same rule, but I'm concerned that it is not properly referenced.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Note also that "Jahi's body" is the terminology used in the references. Ca2james (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Dr Byrne

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)

Great addition, and I think it fairly presents the views of the opposing sides. Nice work. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean this? Uniform Determination of Death Act I'm hesitant to add much info. about (general)topics that are not directly related to this case, but I do believe that this issue was raised in this case 24.0.133.234 (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

You have not provided reliable sources for your claims, and your persistent use of a phrase ("irreversible whole brain death") that does not have support in the cited literature is unacceptable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Lets not all pile-on at the same time. That last edit conflict makes the paragraph look crazy-maybe you should fix it? Also-regarding my changes, as far as I know all of the changes are already supported by references in this exact article-(my source material). I can re-arrange so that each and every change is directly supported by a cite, but I thought that would be tendentious and redundant but I can see why. I just don't want to have long trains of cites.24.0.133.234 (talk) 23:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

While trying to fulfill a request to an editor of this section, and add my own edits to the new material, I was caught in an editing conflict here---> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jahi_McMath_case&diff=prev&oldid=597734496 I also had an additional sentence to apply the entire paragraph to the Jahi McMath case which is unfortunately lost to the article at this point.(McMath's family challenged California to provide this option in their case but the federal appeal was dropped by both sides after they reached an agreement to release McMath.) I still think that a timeline of events in this case might help and I'm afraid that we have all lost the plot and the timeline here.24.0.133.234 (talk) 23:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

24.0.133.234, your recently reverted edits didn't seem supported by the current refs. Also, it's not a consensus view of the "hospital" but the "medical establishment" in general, although there is some dispute. The refs I cited regarding dispute that brain death = true death were from MD's and PhD's, including a neurologist. No ref from anesthesiologist included so adding that not supported by current refs. I believe your statement regarding NJ giving a choice to be factually correct, so if u can properly reference that, it seems a reasonable addition. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Consensus view of the hospital is established and properly cited in this case.(Again if we are going to insist that cites be added & re-added to each term I am willing to go there if that is correct) The alleged general view of some undefinded "medical establishment"-is more appropriate to some other article. I was trying to tie-down how what was already placed in the paragraph relates to the McMath case without going off-course into broader topics.

Also, trying to clarify that this opinion presented as a "minority" view, does not and never did disagree with the (requested information by the editor who started this paragraph) UDDA the legal definition of irreversible brain death "in all 50 states" (as the paragraph implied)--while again, bring the topic back to the article at-hand and relating that in one state--(there are more but posting the statutes in "all 50 states" belongs in another article I hope! And don't forget Japan...) New Jersey specifically because the way that NJ law handles it is the exact opposite of Cali and exactly what McMath's family requested.24.0.133.234 (talk) 00:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

My references actually state brain death is generally agreed upon by med establishment (and not just this hospital). Disagreement is the minority view, but highly relevant to this article because the minority opinion that Jahi isn't really dead is the crux of this case. While I think a brief statement regarding NJ would be appropriate to clarify the law as it applies to the 50 states, I think Japan's policy, though interesting, is off topic and would be more appropriate addition on such a discussion on the brain death page.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, wasn't testimony from Bryne included somewhere in the family's court docs? It was my understanding that although Bryne wasn't used as an opinion to decide the legal brain death issue, his opinion/testimony was considered at some point by the courts, so I'm not sure it is accurate to say the court "rejected the request" as I believe the McMath family used Bryne as their legal expert at some point --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

BoboMeowCat, in State court the family requested that Dr. Byrne be assigned to evaluate Jahi the way Dr. Fisher was and the hospital objected because a) he doesn't have a license to practise in California and b) he's not a neurologist. I believe that petition was rejected but I'm having trouble finding the outcome of that petition; it's possible that it was rejected because of the settlement. Dr. Byrne also submitted an opinion to the Federal court. The Federal suit was ultimately dismissed as moot because the family and hospital ended up settling after being instructed to do so by the State court. There aren't a lot of references involving this doctor but I'm still looking. Thanks for your attention on this. Ca2james (talk) 00:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

It turns out Dr. Byrne did submit an opinion to the State court; I have to try and find what happened with the Federal court. Anyways, Dr. Byrne's State court statement is here (Exhibit C) and there's a news article here. That reference has quite a bit of other information, including that the petition to put tubes in Jahi was denied by the State appeals court and that there were filings in the State court, State appeals, and Federal courts. Ca2james (talk) 01:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

He may have submitted an opinion, but it wasn't based on a full physical examination of McMath while she was in Children's Hospital Oakland. The family had requested an order that he be permitted to conduct an independent examination of her and that that examination be considered by the judge before he ruled on the case. That request was denied - Judge Grillo ruled based exclusively on the examinations from Children's Hospital doctors and the independent expert. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

If the court considered his opinion, I don't think it is accurate to make a blanket request denied staement. Anyway, the next line of text makes it clear that Dr. Byrne's opinion was not included in legal brain death determination.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The request to have Byrne make an independent evaluation was rejected. That is factual. The end. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems that the request to have Byrne make an independent evaluation was not so much requested as ignored, as per "In ruling Tuesday [December 24], 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." [1] Ca2james (talk) 03:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Courts do not simply "ignore" motions and filings. Anything not explicitly granted is denied. The fact that the motion was not explicitly granted acts to deny it. If you would prefer, we could use language such as "The court did not grant the motion." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

It is not "the end". I actually read every word of your source and it does not indicate the court refused to consider Byrne's opinion. So you have restored improperly referenced content. Again. This repeated occurrence is becoming disruptive. Reread that article, nowhere in there does it state the court refused to consider Byrne's opinion. Also, stating I need to "actually read the references" in your edit line is inaccurate, as your ref for the American Academy of Neurology mention is brand new, it wasn't there at all for your previous two edits including that content. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Uh, yes it was. Right here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:27, 2 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)

Which refs are you referring to? I agree foreign refs should be trimmed and replaced with US refs if possible --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The foreign ones lol. I don't want to play with that paragraph right now as all of my work is being wholesale deleted. I have requested that I just be BLOCKED from admin. to make my censorship on this article official. BTW Here is a pdf. titled Want to Terminate Life Support? Not in New York... which goes on to mention NJ in answer to a source that explains NJ law from 2012. I cannot post a link to the pdf. Here is the complete title of this reference if anyone wants to search it; Want to Terminate Life Support? Not in New York: Time to Give New Yorkers a Choice 24.0.133.234 (talk) 01:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I've supported your addition of info regarding NJ, as I believe it is accurate, but it needs to be properly referenced. I don't really have time to investigate such refs myself right now. Maybe later.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

It's quite a stretch to assume you know the specific country a resource was published in based on the spelling of a common word. If you have a problem with a specific reference it would really help if you research the specifics first and then post a link with proof of your point here. Funcrunch (talk) 01:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

UH-pretty sure that an American medical journal would have used the American spelling? Not that far of a stretch. (it is an international Bioethics publication btw). Also-see bold below for clues that these new sources are not American and do not particularly apply to this case. Part of an article on the International standards regarding irreversible brain-death, death, or brain-death? Yes. I don't think that we need to explain anything about a "minority": opinion and who does or does not have one for this article unless it strictly applies to the Jahi McMath case. There are other articles on WP that do that and we can link there if we have to. Maybe if the paragraph was sub-titled something like, "Dr Bryne, expert witness for McMath says that brain-death is not death"-maybe then international supporting references could be used to illustrate other similar opinions to his stance? But that's going pretty far from the case still I think but the resources are interesting. I just don't know how they fit here. Then-again wouldn't we need a section that states why the hospital insists on calling McMath a dead body? I don't even know if that is possible since it just looks to me like they are wrong.

Goila AK, Pawar M (2009). "The diagnosis of brain death". Indian J Crit Care Med 13 (1): 7–11. doi:10.4103/0972-5229.53108. PMC 2772257. PMID 19881172.

Goila AK, Pawar M (2009). "The diagnosis of brain death". Indian J Crit Care Med 13 (1): 7–11. doi:10.4103/0972-5229.53108. PMC 2772257. PMID 19881172.

Joffe AR (2009). "Brain death is not death: a critique of the concept, criterion, and tests of brain death". Rev Neurosci 20 (3-4): 187–98. PMID 20157989.

Shewmon AD (October 2001). "The brain and somatic integration: insights into the standard biological rationale for equating "brain death" with death". J Med Philos 26 (5): 457–78. doi:10.1076/jmep.26.5.457.3000. PMID 11588655.

Joffe A (February 2010). "Are recent defences of the brain death concept adequate?". Bioethics 24 (2): 47–53. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2008.00709.x. PMID 19210745.24.0.133.234 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

24.0.133.234 has a point. I seem to have made an error with ref #22 & #23 which were to support statement "a view which is in contrast to the consensus view of the medical establishment". For one thing, these are the exact same ref, and they appear to come from foreign journal. I had some issue with the formatting of the refs and appear to have lost some.(??) This statement needs better refs to be maintained. Can anyone help out with refs that support the assertion that brain death is currently accepted by mainstream medical establishment as true death?--BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The President's Commission report on “guidelines for the determination of death” culminated in a proposal for a legal definition that led to the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA). The act reads as follows: “An individual who has sustained either 1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or 2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead. A determination of death must be made with accepted medical standards.” Most US state laws have adopted the UDDA. Several states have added amendments regarding physician qualifications, confirmation by a second physician, or religious exemption. The UDDA does not define “accepted medical standards.” The American Academy of Neurology (AAN) published a 1995 practice parameter to delineate the medical standards for the determination of brain death. The parameter emphasized the 3 clinical findings necessary to confirm irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem: coma (with a known cause), absence of brainstem reflexes, and apnea. [2]

The leading professional organization of certified neurologists is an indisputable reliable source in this matter. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

BoboMeow -it doesn't really matter who accepts irreversible brain death as determined per UDDA, that is the law, and a fact that patients in that condition are "legally brain dead"-by definition. Even accepting the fact that UDDA is the law of the land, that does is no way speak to being in that condition,("legally irreversibly brain dead"), as being a "corpse", "dead body", "macabre dead body ", or "grotesque" or even deceased. To clarify, in Jahi's case I believe the hospital's argument was that since Jahi was diagnosed per UDDA-(legally dead), that she was to be treated and referred-to as equal to a deceased corpse.UDDA also allows states to make their own determination per health laws which speak to plug-pulling etc. And they (hospital) used the state statute of California which i guess allowed them to do that-(I'm not 100% there), BUT-McMath's family said that they would challenge the state statute, but that was dropped when the hospital agreed to release McMath. In other states, a family is able to assert their civil right to ask for what the McMaths wanted, (mainly to maintain Jahi's body on ventilation, to not end the life of her body by denying basic care). In those states where civil rights and family decision either way prevails by state statute they usually mention religious and/or privacy rights, as were claimed by McMath's family.

Those refs are interesting btw and it does help to illustrate that legal brain-death and what happens AFTER is handled differently depending on location.24.0.133.234 (talk) 03:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

24.0.133.234, I think brief mention of how the legal status of brain death differs in NJ would be both interesting and on topic, as the preceding line is that it's the law in all 50 states. but I don't really understand your objection regarding majority/minority view on brain death being same as true death. Are you saying such statements are true but should be removed as irrelevant?--BoboMeowCat (talk) 12:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

How about this reference? "Over the past several decades, brain death has become well entrenched as a legal and medical definition of death. It is clearly defined by the neurologic community (see box), standards for diagnosis are in place, and it is established in law. [3] Ca2james (talk) 03:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it better to stick to the topic of the article? And use WP links to other topics, like legal death, and brain death? And phrase/link items about Dr. Bryne within the context, and with actions he did took regarding the case-- (was he called to be an expert witness for McMath's side?), and that the Children's hospital specifically had some written objections to him in their (aborted) legal pleadings? Children's hospital said that he was biased. That he was from Ohio--(but other docs. also mention that both sides were given a list of 5 local doctors which both sides approved and all five doctors refused to play)....stuff that pertains to the case.

I made a mistake trying to leave "all 50 states" etc. in the paragraph I think. I was trying to Not remove material from WP, but make it fit the article, but maybe it just needs more info. about people directly involved with the case, and facts relating to that?24.0.133.234 (talk) 13:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Continuing confusion about Byrnes role in the case. He was proposed as third opinion, but Dr Fisher was used. Also-5 local drs were accepted by both parties at some point to provide an outside opinion, but all five declined to participate. Byrnes was ALSO proposed and/or used as the McMath's side, "expert" witness. Timeline is important here. McMath wanted Brynes as DR/third opinion?, outcome of THAT court was that Dr. Fisher was used, THAT ruling was appealed, but the appeal became moot when McMath was released? (don't take my word for it on the spelling or timing of events or correctness, this is a basic attempt at a timeline but also pointing out that Bryne's status was utilized differently throughout the case. 24.0.133.234 (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for this statement? "Also-5 local drs were accepted by both parties at some point to provide an outside opinion, but all five declined to participate." Ca2james (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Jahi's family wanted Byrne as a third opinion after Fisher and they filed a motion in Grillo's court *prior to the Dec. 24 ruling.* On Dec. 24, Children's Hospital doctors and Fisher testified that Jahi was dead, and according to the San Jose Mercury News, "Alameda County Superior Court Judge Evelio Grillo handed down the verdict after hearing testimony from two doctors, one an independent expert appointed by the judge on Monday and the other a 30-year veteran of the hospital. Both testified that the teen is brain-dead and that her body is alive only because of a ventilator hooked up to her since Dec. 12." [4] This mooted the motion as far as Grillo's court goes - his verdict was a final one at the Superior Court level. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:59, 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)

UGH! I added it way back as a ref. The family's legal petition but can't find it now. It was in the article but not now unless it is moved elsewhere? I'll go back in history to try and find it.24.0.133.234 (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/199529494/Children-s-Hospital-Oakland-Petitioner-s-Writ-Petition-Mcmath-12302013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.133.234 (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Somewhere around pg 11 speaks to five alternate doctors declining. This petition is still in the article (currently #24 citation). I'd ♥ to bullet-point the timeline, but giving it a little time to firm-up and re-check.24.0.133.234 (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

So the sutuarion was that the two parties agreed on five names, and then all five declined, so Fisher was appointed to do the exam. Why does it matter that the five declined? The relevant point is that someone was appointed, not that five didn't do it. If the five had declined for ethical reasons, this would be a different story, but the reasons they declined aren't stated and so cannot be assumed to be relevant. Moreover, the fact that this detail hasn't been covered by the media says that this fact deserves no weight in the article and so mentioning it at all would be WP:UNDUE. Ca2james (talk) 00:13, 3 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)

Thank you! I knew it had to be documented somewhere but I thought it would be in docs related to the Dec 23 hearing, rather than the appeal. Ca2james (talk) 00:17, 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)

Additional BLP dispute resolution requested

I have renewed a request for dispute resolution at the BLP noticeboard, regarding the editing behavior (both in the article and on this talk page) of IP editor 24.0.133.234. Funcrunch (talk) 23:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank-you. I agree that we need some oversite here.24.0.133.234 (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I also think we need some help here. Ca2james (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree we need some help here. I added concerns regarding what appear to be repeat violations of 3RR rule by editor NorthBySouthBaranof --BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

If there are 3RR violations or edit warring going on, it may be time to get the article protected until the ruckus here dies down. You all need to sit down and hash out what this article should be about, from the start, and work together. It seems to me like the original issue—whether to treat McMath as dead, alive, or something in between—has been largely resolved by avoiding taking a position. And that's fine. But this article must not become a WP:COATRACK (which, by the way, would be well outside the scope of what WP:BLPN could help with). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Mendaliv, Actually, since the multiple complaints were filed, things have calmed down significantly. Edit warring seems to have subsided and cooperation has improved --BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe the article as it currently stands accurately describes the case and allots appropriate space for explaining both the viewpoints of McMath's family and that of the medical profession. The crux of the conflict that caused me to request assistance was that, as far as I can tell from their contributions, 24.0.133.234 does not personally define brain death in the same way as the other editors on this article. Funcrunch (talk) 20:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Well if there's an ongoing concern with how brain death should be defined, etc., WT:MED and WP:NPOVN may be better venues than BLPN. I don't mean to turn this into the counter scene from Ikiru, but those are just places where you're likely to find people who have dealt with this same problem before and know how to handle the same inevitable arguments. I do think things are looking better here, though I would suggest (in line with my other comments) being careful of needlessly complicating the article by addressing related issues. This is an article about Jahi McMath suffering brain death, full stop. Content about Jahi McMath not having to do with her brain death should be limited, content about brain deaths other than Jahi McMath's should be limited, and content about neither should probably be avoided. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the input and suggestions for other forums should the conflict remain. I'd originally posted my request for assistance to the general editor assistance request page before you moved it to the BLP noticeboard, so I'm grateful for the assistance of a more experienced editor who is familiar with the various conflict resolution resources Wikipedia offers. Funcrunch (talk) 21:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Perspective

Talk page: 150k. article: 18k. just saying.(User:Mercurywoodrose)108.94.0.101 (talk) 04:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I have wondered if part of this talkpage should be archived or collapsed but since I am a preservationist, its not something that I would do. I have added a lot of comments here, but I think that it is appropriate in this case so as not to disturb the article.24.0.133.234 (talk) 15:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Legal action/transfer timeline

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)

Good work. I would add that on the 24th, as per the sources, Grillo ruled that McMath was legally dead, based on the testimony of CHO doctors and the independent expert. He extended the restraining order to give time for appeals. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

THAnk-you! i especially like the way that you put separate events separate even-as they happened on the same date(s). makes it very much more understandable. A previous version of this article had a three event timeline, (this is better)--and it really helps the reader see exactly how the case transpired. Really nice job. I think that it could use some bullets and maybe something to re-indicate same date events like a star or line?24.0.133.234 (talk) 02:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I nominate using the section under the main content as a section titled "timeline" or something like that. There is a way to name the cites so that they will not double and multiple post in the references section. (by using cite title or name?).............I do have a slight prob. with something like January 8, although it is a good secondary source, and something that article readers probably want to know, (so it is probably good for the TL)--but we want to be really careful about adding further health reports that are family facebook updates and the like--(not really verifiable). Maybe adding McMath's family reports that...?24.0.133.234 (talk) 02:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

This timeline is great. Thanks Ca2james I also really like how NorthBySouthBaranof divided the main article into 3 sections and formatted the references into columns. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Or slapping it on a timeline template?24.0.133.234 (talk) 03:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

You're all welcome. Please bear in mind that these are just my notes and don't include things like Judge Grillo's statements. The references may also not be perfect and there may be better ones out there; these are just what I found. It was a very complicated situation. I was going to write this all out as sentences but then I figured that you all are much better at that than me. I'm better at editing things than I am at coming up with things in the first place :) . I just hope that all of this information will be useful.

I think references can be named with < ref name=blah > and then recalled that way.

I also love the sections that NorthBySouthBaranof added, too - I think they break up the article and make it flow better. 03:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I think if we're going to include timeline in the article it needs to be clarified a little more. Maybe rephrasing “family upset” as “family gave press conference stating such and such" etc. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:30, 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)

Removed timeline. I agree with [Special:Contributions/24.0.133.234|24.0.133.234]] that it makes a useful addition to the article, but it's still in draft form so removed pending rewrite. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Timeline should be out essentially per WP:IINFO and WP:NOTNEWS. What it is at this point is just a list of news articles and primary sources on the case that have little bearing on the long-term impact of this case (presuming there will be any). Wikipedia is not a news aggregator, nor a repository of links to relevant topics. We're an encyclopedia, and so should summarize what's relevant about the topic, as stated in the published sources, and discuss the important points of the specific case. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

OOps sorry. This case needs a timeline, especially of the court dates and filings with other landmarks in the situation (as it currently is). The reason why I put it in article I was trying to fix some punctuation errors with it, but then realized that I would be messing with someone's post on a Talk Page. SORRY I thought it was good to go almost.24.0.133.234 (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

If you want to work on some text that isn't finished, you should do it in the sandbox on your user page rather than putting it into a live, published article and editing it after the fact. Funcrunch (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Yep. But the funny thing was that I was going to uppercase the "H" in the word hospital which started a sentence, when I realized that i did not want to mess with the talk page, but when I reloaded the mistake that I had seen was gone. So i really didn't edit the TL at all, just moved it and added a section for it.

And Mendaliv the links are not really a list of links, they are references for a chronological, and geographical--(when it comes to courts jurisdiction), list of events which occurred in the case itself which were also reported in secondary sources. Local court-Federal Court, cases which were reported-on but later dropped, statements related to the TRO, and then asking for other mandates.............it gets pretty confusing pretty easily, especially when an unofficial death certificate was mentioned with a date of Dec. 12-(when Jahi was first declared legally brain-dead)...and that was not done until January (back-dated according to Cali. health statutes). ........even-if it has to be collapsed, the TL is an asset to the topic. If there are more legal actions or even many more, there is a way to COLLAPSE? it into timeline before release from hospital and timeline after, or however would break it up better.24.0.133.234 (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that the article needs a timeline I don't think a timeline is an asset to the article. I think the most important relevent dates and events can be covered quite succinctly in prose. A detailed summary or timeline of every filing and result isn't needed to convey what happened, as per Mendaliv's comment above. Ca2james (talk) 03:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

@24.0.133.234:, the problem is it's duplicative of content elsewhere in the article. Moreover, who cares? What does this actually add to the article? Is there something significant about the dates, the spacing between them, or something like that? While I agree that mentioning dates to an extent is informative, there's simply no clear benefit to including a timeline format that is merely a list of headlines with links to articles. Even if it's not intended to be a list of links, it has the same effect, and fails WP:NOTNEWS in the same manner. Furthermore, there are issues of undue weight in giving equal prominence to certain events listed in the timeline. Finally, and this is said with the utmost respect to all involved who have clearly put in a lot of time considering this issue, we're talking about events that largely took place only three and four months ago. I am frankly not even convinced this subject merits an article at all, let alone paragraph after paragraph of text that merely parrots what's in mass media reports. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

NEJM

I want to make it clear that my objection was based solely on the removal of the source/reference, and without prejudice to the idea that the section may need to be rewritten. The NEJM is an indisputable reliable source and is considered one of the gold standards of all academic journals - its articles are of notably high quality. Removing an indisputably relevant NEJM reference from this page cannot but lower its quality. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

JFTR-FWIW"death of the individual" is a little tricky, and I'm not sure how it fits with the context of the article-but to explain the death concept of permanent brain death, I kind of like it.24.0.133.234 (talk) 05:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, your rewording of the statement involving that journal works fine for me. I had zero objection to the journal, just the reference to worldwide consensus, because it’s my understanding there’s no such consensus in Japan (read a survey that 50% of docs disagree in Japan) and although brain death is a legal option there for those who wish to donate organs, it’s not widely accepted and it’s a serious problem for their transplant program. But I think all of that is beyond scope of this article. Anyway, this is in contrast to the situation in NJ, where there is a religious objection clause, but still, brain death is widely accepted as death.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Why is this stuff being added? What does it have to do with the specific case at issue in this article, rather than the general issue of brain death, right to die, medical ethics, and the like? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

There should be a way to explain that due to McMath's location, California state health codes, and the hospital's policies, her situation was handled as it was, but to not give the impression that the circumstances as far as laws or policies, are national or even global. i think that pointing-out that if the girl had been declared brain dead somewhere else, that different laws and policies would apply in her case or someone in her condition.

maybe a sentence or so to clarify how california law specifically influenced the case(s), and then being careful throughout the article to not misinform or imply that the federal law as it is applied in California, and especially the local/state law as it was applied in this case............would extend nationally or globally?24.0.133.234 (talk) 05:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Since the case occurred in a particular location which is named in the article, it follows that the events that occurred were constrained by the laws, statutes, and customs specific to that location. Even if an explanation of how this case might differ if it had occurred in another jurisdiction wasn't WP:OR, such a discussion is beyond the boundaries of the case and doesn't belong in this article.

In other words, this is an article about the case and what happened, not an article discussing what might have happened if something were different. Obviously if something like the location was different then things would happened differently. However, that they could possibly have been different doesn't mean that they deserve discussion in this article. Ca2james (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

New Jersey

Added brief statement on New Jersey's religious objection provision to brain death law. I also found indication that New York has a similar law, but I didn’t include it because I’ve yet to find adequate reference for New York state law.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Why? What does this case have to do with New York and New Jersey? Remember: this is an article about a person declared brain-dead and the medicolegal and ethical dispute arising from it. More general stuff belongs in other articles, and while it's certainly appropriate to reference those other articles in the article text or in the see also section, we shouldn't be incorporating content this far afield. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Mendaliv It seemed appropriate as this statement is directly following a statement that brain death is legal death in all 50 U.S. states. Additionally, the McMath family later filed lawsuit that lack of such a provision for religious objection violated their religious privacy rights. This information was previously added by IP user but deleted due to lack of proper reference.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I just removed it, plus the statement that brain death is legal death in all 50 states. Limited relevance at best to this topic; this article is not about brain death or legal death, but about McMath's case. A link to brain death is all we need. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Mendaliv, I don't want to go into this whole thing again, but legal death seems more appropriate in this case, since it specifically means (permanent and irreversible) brain death. And using, "body is alive"-clinical death to explain McMath's position. Editors who want to expand on those topics can do so on those pages. I agree with staying with the article topic.24.0.133.234 (talk) 23:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I dont understand what you mean by "And using, "body is alive"-clinical death to explain McMath's position" or why it's needed in this case. In the grand scheme of things, this is an interesting but minor case that has had no effect on any laws or statutes. A discussion of the legal definitions of death in new jersey or the other 49 states isn't needed; a link to the relevant articles on brain death and legal death (the proper location for such a discussion) is enough to establish background and context for this case. Ca2james (talk) 03:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

"body is alive"-in quotes meaning, don't quote me, but trying to shorten the McMath-side of the problem. I thought that was the main problem in the case, or the McMath-view? Hospital says that she is deceased, family says "no she is not" because she is not clinically dead? And I agree that a reference to legal death is much better than trying to define it on this article's page.

-But, it wouldn't hurt to have a sentence or so that explains how hospital, local, and state-laws and practices influenced McMath's treatment. I've already explained this elsewhere here, but it would also be better to not imply or leave the impression that everything about the McMath case is a national or global way of acting in related cases,so as long as the article is clear about that, the less that has to be said about other cases or laws or customs.24.0.133.234 (talk) 14:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Byrne discussion

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)

Byrne was requested by the family for the brain death determination and that request denied. The court documents from the family include statements from Byrne as he later saw her (see timeline section). Including Byrne's involvement in case was part of the NPOV requests of user 24.0.133.234 who requested help regarding concerns this article was previously not neutral.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

It speaks WORSE for Byrne that he decided what condition she was in before he saw her (seriously, who trusts a doctor that gives the diagnosis prior to examining the patient?). Nevertheless, his opinion is tangential at best as his opinion was not considered by the court, as the sources show. Disturbingly, we quote the doctor who the court did not want to hear from, but do not quote the independent expert DID want to hear from. This is troubling, as it appears to be POV pushing by those who agree with Byrne, rather than a neutral documenting of the facts surrounding the case. Yobol (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The court did hear from this doctor, just not for the brain death determination, but either way, we are not trying to "speak worse" of Dr. Byrne or speak well of him either, but rather present this whole case from NPOV. Fact that Byrne said this before seeing her, is both accurate and speaks both to his personal bias and to his minority argument regarding brain death believed by the McMath family and their supporters. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, findings of Dr. Fisher are prominently included. Sure, not in quote form, as such quotes would be too technical for WP, but detailed as follows: "Fisher examined McMath and affirmed the diagnosis of brain death, reporting that she had no activity on an electroencephalogram, no blood flow to the brain and did not breathe when removed from mechanical ventilation, all of which are standard clinical indications of total brain death.[20][21] On December 24, 2013, Judge Grillo ruled that McMath was legally dead, basing his decision on the medical evidence presented by physicians from Children's Hospital Oakland and from independent expert Paul Fisher." --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's see what other state. Did the court request Byrne's evaluation, because certainly they requested Fisher's, as the court appointed independent evaluation. Byrne's quote is disproportionate to their role in the case, as far as I can tell, it is being pushed by those who agree with Byrne's position, rather than his actual role here, which appears only to be that the family really, really wanted his opinion because they already knew what it would be before he even examined her. Yobol (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Byrne's position significant to case. If McMath family didn’t believe his opinion, there’d be no case, no argument, no story. IP editor who introduced Byrne did appear to agree with it, while other editors didn't. I don't as much agree with Byrne's position, as I agree it significant to Jahi McMath case. Anyway, we attempted to neutrally present Byrne’s opinion in the context you describe it, in that it did appear family requested his opinion knowing very well what it would be in advance. Court denied Byrne's opinion as part of brain death determination but considered it as part of decision to maintain life support allowing time to arrange transfer. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

As I already said above in the original dr Byrne section, his opinion has no place in the article. The family wanted her kept on the ventilator before he ever came along. The text is WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK and must be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ca2james (talk • contribs) 04:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

If most editors want it out, I don't strongly object, but I don't agree it's [WP:COATRACK]], because it's a quote directly about Jahi, and not one of Byrne's general anti-braindeath, anti-organ donation quotes. I think it adds to the side IP 24 complained was missing, but in an honest/neutral way. Also, Mendaliv apparently didn't think it was coatrack, as he already trimmed all that stuff out (which I think was good because in attempt to balance all that stuff, more coatrack kept getting added and was becoming a mess and after it was out we finally ended up with a version it seemed everyone could accept). Anyway, who added that quote from Byrne in the first place? It wasn't me. I think it might have been NorthbySouthBaranof, who definitely didn't strike me as a Byrne supporter. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 04:42, 6 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)

Deleted quote. Replaced with brief mention of Bryne’s testimony in court documents during appeal to summarizes his point in a few words.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm fine with the replacement text. Ca2james (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I added a small note regarding the movements - I think if we mention Byrne's statement about them, we need to mention that those movements are biologically outside the brain path and are consistent with brain death. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

According to the ref it was part of his court testimony. http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Catholic-Organization-Says-Jahi-McMath-With-Jesus-Christ-239314591.html Either way, I’m not that attached to the word “testified” but think should be clear these statements were in court documents because otherwise it doesn’t make sense the hospital is responding to these statements, so changed to “stated in court documents”. The statement you added about reflex movements works for me.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that "testified" doesn't belong here but "stated in court documents" works for me. Thanks. Ca2james (talk) 16:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Medicolegal vs. religious definition of death

I just went to a conference on medical ethics that discussed this. The issue as I see it is between the medicolegal definition of death and a particular religious definition of death.

Under the legal definition of death, which is generally the Uniform Determination of Death Act which most states have adopted, a person is dead if they have irreversible cessation of the entire brain, including the brain stem.

The overwhelming majority of doctors, and most laws, define brain death as death.

However, there are religious views that believe a person is still alive if the heart is still beating. There is a significant minority of doctors who believe that, and the state laws in New York and New Jersey accommodate that belief. I believe there were articles in the New York Times about that.

For example, there are orthodox Jews (and orthodox Jewish doctors) who believe a person is alive if the heart is beating. Ariel Sharon's family kept him alive for years, even though his doctors said that recovery was impossible and that most of his brain (though not his brain stem) was destroyed. Orthodox Jews are not a fringe view. There are also Christians who have similar views.

It's true that a judge decided that McMath was dead, and that an overwhelming majority of doctors would decide that she was dead given these facts.

However, that's not a religious opinion. The family has religious beliefs contrary to the judge and the doctors. The issue is, what are the rights of a family whose religious beliefs don't accept that determination? Do they have a right to move their daughter to the custody of doctors who do agree with their religious beliefs? Do they have the same rights as Ariel Sharon's family? If they found an institution willing to accommodate them, why didn't the hospital let them move her there? If there is discussion on that issue from WP:RSs, it belongs in the article. --Nbauman (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

As the article discusses, the hospital never had any objection to letting the family move McMath's body. They objected to McMath's family's demand that the hospital perform surgical procedures on McMath's body before moving it.

Her family filed a lawsuit seeking to force the hospital's doctors to insert breathing tubes and feeding tubes into McMath's body. That, the hospital refused to do, on the ethical grounds that they would be operating on a dead body. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand a lot of details on this case. I don't understand why it's unethical to perform surgical procedures on a "dead" (by their definition) body. Hospitals perform surgical procedures on dead bodies all the time, for example in preparation for organ transplant. An autopsy is a surgical procedure. Undertakers perform surgical procedures. According to the linked NBC/AP story, the hospital wanted to turn off the ventilator, which would have stopped McMath from breathing and stopped her heart. One of the principles of medical ethics is autonomy of the patient, which in this case is transferred to her parents. If they want to maintain the ventilator, and they were willing to pay for it, until they can remove her, it seems that the hospital has an ethical obligation to maintain the respirator.

In any case, the important issue is that there is a significant minority opinion that disagrees with the Uniform Determination of Death Act, and would be permitted under WP:FRINGE. The legal definition of death, under the Act, is the law in most U.S. states. However, New York and New Jersey law have provision for heart death:

“Religious or Conscience exception” to the definition of death. The exception provides that if the physician has reason to believe on the basis of information in the individual’s available medical records or information provided by the family or any other person knowledgeable about the individual’s religious beliefs, that the individual’s personal religious beliefs would be violated by the declaration of death, then the death of the individual shall not be declared upon the basis of the neurological criteria. In such cases, death is declared, and the time of death fixed, solely upon the basis of cardiorespiratory criteria. Only New Jersey and New York recognize such an exception. http://www.lawrev.state.nj.us/UDDA/UDDAM07092012.pdf

If McMath had been in New Jersey or New York, her family would have gotten their wishes. The New York Times discussed it. I think this is worth mentioning in the entry. --Nbauman (talk) 03:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Cutting into a dead body to remove organs is done respectfully, but it is done with the underlying understanding that the person is dead. It is not an attempt to "save the life" of someone who is already dead. Her parents wanted doctors to perform "life-extending" treatments on a dead body, and this the doctors refused to do, on the grounds that it would be futile to provide treatment to a dead body. Hospitals and doctors have the right not to perform medical procedures on ethical grounds. This is why you cannot walk into a Catholic hospital and demand an elective abortion. You might find someone, somewhere who would do it - but Catholic hospitals have ethical objections to them.

That's correct, the hospital originally wanted to turn off the ventilator - it would not have "stopped McMath from breathing" because McMath is not breathing. The machine is breathing into her body. As the medical affidavits make clear, McMath's brain stem is dead and hence she would not even reflexively attempt to breathe when removed from the ventilator. It is entirely normal to turn off a ventilator when someone is dead. The hospital's plans to turn off the ventilator were in accordance with its normal procedures after a patient has died in the hospital. They then sought to transfer her body to the county coroner for an autopsy, as per state law.

And no, we don't really know that her family would have gotten their wishes in New Jersey or New York - the hospital and its doctors would likely still have refused to provide treatment they viewed as unethical. McMath's family has found someone, somewhere who would treat a dead body - but Children's Hospital Oakland doesn't have to. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

By the way, this discussion is without prejudice to improving the article. If there's reliably-sourced information you think should be in the article, please feel free to be WP:BOLD and add it. However, I would think it WP:CRYSTAL to assert that the outcome would have been different in another state - we don't know what or how hypothetical courts would have ruled in a hypothetical case in a different state. A full discussion of the differences in state laws regarding death would seem to belong in an article about that issue, not an article about an individual case in California. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I have read the New York Times article in question, and I don't think it supports the point you want it to make. All it says is that In two states, New York and New Jersey, hospitals must take into account the family’s religious or moral views in deciding how to proceed in such cases. That one-line statement is not conclusory of any outcome, nor does it make any specific claims about the Jahi McMath case, as opposed to legal death in general. That discussion, then, properly belongs in our article about Legal death. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed that "what would have happened had Jahi been in New Jersey" is not relevant to this particular Wikipedia article. For prior discussion on this issue please see above section. Funcrunch (talk) 16:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the NYT article. It says, in the context of the McMath case, "Under New York and New Jersey laws, people can prolong the provision of oxygen to keep a person’s heart beating for religious or moral reasons." That makes it relevant. That's what the McMaths wanted to do, and it makes their demands sound more reasonable.

You keep referring to McMath as a "dead body." That's not a fact, that's the point at issue. She's a dead body according to the medicolegal definition in 48 states. She's not a dead body according to the medicolegal definition in 2 states.

There are two sides in this story, and it would be WP:POV to accept one side in Wikipedia's voice. There is the medicolegal definition of death in 48 states, and the medicolegal definition of death in 2 states, and neither is inherently true. There is the medicolegal definition of death, and the McMaths' religious or philosophical definition of death, and neither is inherently true. --Nbauman (talk) 18:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not POV, any more than it is POV to describe someone as guilty of a crime when they have been convicted of that crime in a court of law. Many convicted persons contest their innocence, but Wikipedia articles nonetheless describe such persons as convicted and guilty of the offense until and unless a court of law rules otherwise.

A competent court in the state of California has ruled that Jahi McMath is dead. Thus, we describe her as dead. We mention the competing claim and theory, but that claim and theory must not be given undue weight. The claim that she is alive has been tested and rejected by a court of law and is adhered to by only a small fringe group. Thus, it is subordinated to the view which is predominant in reliable sources and predominant in the law. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

BTW, this article http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_24993245/jahi-mcmath-could-her-case-change-how-california which is cited in this Wikipedia entry also refers to the New York and New Jersey laws, and the conflict between the Uniform Determination of Death Act and religious beliefs. It also gives an account of the similar death of a 12-year-old Jewish boy, Motl Brody. That's 2 WP:RS about McMath that referred to NY and NJ laws, which is a good argument for mentioning it in the Wikipedia entry. --Nbauman (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. This article is about the events that happened, not about what might have happened had it occurred in another state or about the laws in other states. The fact that something is mentioned in a reliable source does not mean that the thing is relevant to the article. Such a discussion belongs in a broader overview page, if one exists. Note that the Motl Brody case is linked in the box at the bottom. Ca2james (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I think a general statement about the NJ law is beyond the scope of this article, but if we can find something regarding the NJ law that relates DIRECTLY to this case, it seems appropriate. For example, I think I remember Christopher Dolan stating in an article that this would not have been a legal battle if it had happened in NJ. If that statement was recorded in a reliable source, it seems appropriate because it relates directly to this case. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

There's no context for such a statement and adding that context would be WP:COATRACK. We don't have to add every sourceable statement to the article just because it can be verified. Ca2james (talk) 01:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Byrne said the family was removing McMath to New York. That makes New York law relevant. --Nbauman (talk) 01:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Not exactly. They were trying to move McMath somewhere - anywhere - and ended up moving her somewhere within California. The fact is, the New York destination was suggested not because of the laws in that state but because someone reached out to the family. Suggesting that New York's law should be included on that basis is WP:COATRACK. Ca2james (talk) 02:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe there's been any official statement from the family on exactly where they moved Jahi. There's been some speculation in the media, but no proof of current location. Funcrunch (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

You're right; we don't know where they moved her, and I was wrong saying that she'd been moved somewhere in California. No matter where she is - even if she was in the NY facility that offered to taker her - suggesting that NY's law should be included in the article would still be WP:COATRACK because that facility wasn't chosen based on the laws of that state. Ca2james (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

1. In one of the legal filings linked in this entry, Byrne said they were moving McMath to a facility in New York.

2. Independent of that, if multiple [[WP:RS]s about the McMath case bring up the New York and New Jersey laws -- which they do -- then WP:WEIGHT requires us to include that in the entry. It's not WP:COATRACK if multiple WP:RSs make that connection. --Nbauman (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I found LA Times article which contains a direct quote from McMath family attorney, Christopher Dolan regarding NJ law in relation to case.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/commentary/la-oe-0121-dolan-jahi-mcmath-brain-death-20140121,0,5121800.story#axzz2yWEcQW4Z

There is context for this because article currently contains: “At least one commentator has asked whether this case will affect how California's determination of death laws work.” That is toward top of article, but should really be moved to the Aftermath section (because ref is from 1/25 - after transfer) where it can be incorporated with NJ quote something like this:

According to Dolan, “the McMath family's position isn't ridiculous or unheard of. There would have been no legal battle if Jahi had had her tonsils out in New Jersey”, referring to a New Jersey state law allowing religious objection to a declaration of death on the basis of neurological criteria. At least one commentator has asked whether this case will affect how California's determination of death laws work.

I’m going to be bold and add this. Hopefully, it will resolve issue regarding information Nbauman says belongs under WP:WEIGHT. I tend to agree with others that NY law is beyond the scope of this case, even if Byrne mentioned Jahi moving to NY, because Jahi’s location is officially unknown. Although I can see the argument for including NY if multiple reliable sources make reference to it in regards to this case, it still seems to me information about the NY law as well as any detailed info about the NJ law would be better placed in an article about brain death in general under a section regarding how laws differ by jurisdiction.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, BoboMeowCat. I'd read Nbauman's earlier comment and meant to post a reply to say that I saw the point being made. Thanks for updating the article. Ca2james (talk) 03:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Sourced and relevant. Good work, BoboMeowCat. Thanks! NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Tracheostomy

McMath's body is hooked to mechanical ventilation. It is unsourced and wrong to state that the tracheostomy was performed "so she can breathe without assistance." Mechanical ventilation is the very definition of assistance. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

WoW! Looks like she is in NJ! And NOT a "decomposing corpse" like everyone said

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/06/20/questions-raised-over-condition-of-jahi-mcmath-after-lawyer-said-girl-is-improving/

So I guess NJ law is now relevant?24.0.133.234 (talk) 15:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

There's presently no proof of anything. There's only her family's word. 67.165.114.238 (talk) 05:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Life support

Revisiting this page after recent edits made it pop up on my watchlist, I noticed that the lead stuck out as using a term not used by reliable sources. Specifically the phrase "....their efforts to maintain her body on mechanical ventilation". Reliable sources say efforts to maintain her body on "life support". They often even use phrase "life support" in the title:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/teen-jahi-mcmath-brain-dead-after-tonsil-surgery-court-appointed-doctor-confirms/

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Judge-Orders-Oakland-Hospital-to-Keep-Jahi-McMath-on-Life-Support-236808851.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/21/jahi-mcmath-life-support_n_4485119.html

http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_24788294/document-hospitals-petition-opposing-an-independent-expert-asking

In addition to following RS here, this is actually what the family was fighting for because life support includes the feeding tube and they were fighting for that along with the ventilator. This should be changed (but along with this change we should probably also add somewhere text regarding RS referring to "life support" as "death support" in this case. http://edition.cnn.com/2013/12/28/health/life-support-ethicsBoboMeowCat (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

IIRC, "mechanical ventilation" was used instead of "life support" because mcmath isn't actually alive, "life support" is an inaccurate term for what she was receiving, and the proper medical term is "mechanical ventilation". "Death support" isn't even a phrase, AFAIK and wouldn't including it be WP:OR? --Ca2james (talk) 17:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

"Mechanical ventilation" is just the ventilator. "Life support" is the medical term that includes the ventilator and the sugar water in her veins, and it's also a broad term to include all sorts of other possible steps to maintain the body and includes things like the feeding tube (which they were fighting for). For sake of NPOV, I don't think we should write as if we, as editors, have taken a stance regarding whether or not McMath is "actually alive" and instead just report the cold hard facts in the case, such as her doctors have declared her brain dead. In almost all states she is legally dead. In NJ she wouldn't actually be considered legally dead (and reports are that is where they moved her). Either way, "life support" is the phrase used by the RS here, so I think we should use it too. It's also notable that "Life support" is the term used when such steps are taken to keep a brain dead person's body alive prior to organ removal for transplantation, so it's not a controversial term that implies recovery or non-brain dead status. Regarding the phrase "death support", I wasn't actually suggesting we use that in any sort of official capacity, but rather think we should mention somewhere in the article that RS referred to "life support" in this case as "death support" http://edition.cnn.com/2013/12/28/health/life-support-ethics --BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Beyond being the phrase that RS used in the Jahi McMath case (see above) "life support" is also the phrase used in general cases regarding maintaining a brain dead body prior to organ donation, see quote from the National Institute of Health organ donation info site: "Finding a donor heart can be difficult. The heart must be donated by someone who is brain-dead but is still on life support. The donor heart must be matched as closely as possible to your tissue type to reduce the chance that your body will reject it." http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003003.htm --BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The term "ventilator" is also used in reliable sources. More to the point, the term "life support" has a specific implication and imputes a disputed claim. I have replaced "mechanical ventilation" and explained the specific conflict - her parents believed it to be life support while her doctors believed it to be futile treatment of a deceased person. This presents the factual type of system that McMath was on, and spells out in a neutral fashion the fundamental root of the dispute. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Mostly in agreement with your additions, but I've changed both "believe" and "view" to forms of "consider", because "[x] believes such and such" expresses slightly more doubt than "[x] views [y] as such and such". Saying both considered something to be the case is slightly more neutral, is still factual and might avoid some future NPOV discussions. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 13:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I reviewed the references currently used for the article and all that cover the issue use the phrase "life support" and none use the phrase "mechanical ventilation". Some of the sources discuss the ventilator specifically, such as the apnea testing, and allowing her to be released from the hospital with the ventilator and her fluid lines in place, but that's already covered in the article. Also, please refer to the text and links above regarding "life support" being the phrase used in other neutral, non-disputed cases such as maintaining a brain dead body prior to organ removal for organ transplants. We should use the phrase used by RS, and the phrase used by the medical professionals in general for such cases. She wasn't only on the ventilator. She was also receiving fluids and sugar water in veins. Medically, doing these things to maintain a body is referred to as "life support". --BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The fact is, there is a dispute over whether there was life to support. It is not true that all sources use that phrase - the Los Angeles Times specifically refers to it as a ventilator and not life support. I have added "and other measures" to indicate that there were things in place besides ventilation.

My version is an improvement because it specifically details the crux of the dispute in the lede in an entirely-NPOV manner - her parents wished to continue what they believed to be life support of what her doctors considered to be a dead person. We can let readers decide who is correct. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

This point is well taken - I didn't intend for there to be a difference but if one might be perceived, then that would be bad. Thanks for your edits. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: I figured as much and figured that if I had just pointed you to it, you would have changed it yourself. The only reason I changed it immediately is that on articles like this (as in, any kind of controversial article, really), the slightest wording-related issues can become full-blown disputes within hours. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@BoboMeowCat: I strongly disagree that "all that cover the issue use the phrase "life support" and none use the phrase "mechanical ventilation"".

• The family's attorney used "ventilator" at least once: ""What this case represents legally is that parents can say no when a hospital says, 'We're pulling the plug.' They thought that a hospital shouldn't tell them their child was going to be removed from a ventilator," Dolan told reporters." (Emphasis mine, source: CNN, which is the first source on the article);
• As has the hospital: "We have the deepest sympathy for Jahi's mother, who wishes her daughter was alive; but the ventilator cannot reverse the brain death that has occurred and it would be wrong to give false hope that Jahi will ever come back to life," Dr. David Durand, the hospital's chief of pediatrics, said in a statement Monday." (Emphasis mine. Source: same as previous).
• A quote from McMath's mother can be read either as McMath's mother using "ventilator" or quoting the hospital's use of ventilator: ""They have not given me a reason yet of why she went into cardiac arrest. They haven't even given me a reason for her bleeding. They haven't given me a reason that they couldn't stop the bleeding," Winkfield told CNN. "The only thing they keep pushing for me is to get her off their ventilator."" (Emphasis mine. Source: LA Times, fourth source in article).
• At least one unrelated ethicist (DiCamillo, of National Catholic Bioethics Center) has used similar terminology: "In Jahi’s situation, DiCamillo said if rigorous testing showed there was no medical doubt that her entire brain no longer functioned, “there would be no Catholic ethical objection to ending mechanical support for her.”" (Emphasis mine. Source: Washington Post, which is the second source on the article).
• The Huffington Post referred to "ventilator" twice in this article (which is source 3 on our article), using life-support only once in relation to Jahi McMath, in a direct quotation: ("“Orders should have been immediately written to discontinue all life support,” said McCullough, who has no personal knowledge of Jahi’s case."), and that quote barely suffices for calling it life support, because it strongly suggests it should have been stopped once brain death was concluded. (The other occurrence of "life support" in the article refers not to McMath but to the case of Munoz).
• LA Times (source four on the article) uses "life support" to describe what happened directly after the operation/in result of complications, but uses "ventilator" and "machine" for anything from the declaration of brain death onwards.
• CNN Opinion (source five on the article) even expressively highlights the problem we have here: "And no law prohibits continued ventilation of a dead body. We do it routinely to preserve organs for transplant. Jahi's parents have decided to try to continue ventilation -- if you call it life-support you are taking a stand on whether she is dead -- so the issues become who will provide the treatment and who will pay." (emphasis mine). It also pretty clearly uses "ventilation" and variant.
  

That's just from the first five sources on this article. If you want me to, I'll happily comb through the remaining 39 sources, but I think this proves pretty clearly both why "life support" is problematic and that not quite all that cover the issue use "life support" as opposed to "ventilation", "mechanical ventilation" or a variation thereof. Most use a mixture, with exception of pieces that illustrate a strong opinion in one way or another (those that strongly feel McMath is alive and/or that the hospital is otherwise in the wrong use "life support" solely; most of those that strongly feel that McMath is dead, continued support of some kind is wrong and that the family is wrong or mistaken go out of their way to avoid "life support" out of direct quotations). I feel that NorthBySouthBaranof's solution of mentioning both is the most neutral we can use in a situation like this, as either use on its own either expresses or strongly suggests the expression of bias in one direction or the other. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

"body" again

req. to move to talk page. so talk. I undid that last one because my browser was crashing and i had made a mistake by adding the same ref. twice while I had meant to add the Contra Costa Times reference.24.0.133.234 (talk) 22:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

And as far as the "body"-edit that is currently on the way to edit-warring, the reason I removed it was because it was unnecessary and confusing. It also implied that McMath is (publicly known to be24.0.133.234 (talk) 23:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)) a corpse, or clinically dead, which would misinform article readers. That is why I went back and added an internal link to clinical death, but I would be OK with just having the implicit, "body" removed.24.0.133.234 (talk) 22:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

In other words-I am hoping that we can agree to use the word "body" only for publicly known clinically dead people to avoid misrepresentation and to follow WP:NPOV . For this article, if somewhere in the future, there is a valid announcement of Ms. Mcmath's clinical death, I think that it would be helpful to not refer to her as a (implied "dead") "body" for the time period where she is not known to be clinically deceased.24.0.133.234 (talk) 23:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

She has been declared dead by the Alameda County coroner, a ruling which was affirmed by a judge of competent jurisdiction. Until and unless there is convincing and confirmed scientific evidence that the declaration of death was incorrect, that ruling is controlling. Brain death is death, under California law and according to the overwhelming majority of medical viewpoints. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

As NorthBySouthBaranof said, she was declared clinically dead already and "body" is the appropriate term to use. The fact that she is apparently in new jersey (which was reported by one news outlet and later picked up by others and which hasn't been confirmed by the family) and they're keeping the body on mechanical ventilation is irrelevant. --Ca2james (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Ca2james-NorthBySouthBaranof did NOT say that because NorthBySouthBaranof knows that is NOT TRUE. Mcmath has not-as far as the public knows, been declared clinical death. Until proven otherwise, she is the same exact amount of "dead" that she was when she left the hospital, which was brain death. Also-for the record. if anyone can find any reliable reference that states ANYTHING about legal death and relates to this case? I recently noticed that we had sprinkled the term in the article here-BUT--the references do not back it up. (one instance I rm said that Judge Grillo had declared "legal death" when the article cited said NO SUCH THING! I have a problem using the term in the article in that case-but I could be wrong, so if there IS a good ref. for legal death and this specific case-where is it? And to NBSB--we went around about this already. The Coroner's declaration of "death" has never been completed or filed. So I think we have already answered: "Until and unless there is convincing and confirmed scientific evidence that the declaration of death was incorrect, that ruling is controlling."-----not "scientifically", just legally, not dead, or not dead since she has moved to NJ.24.0.133.234 (talk) 22:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

[45] "The Alameda County Coroner issued a death certificate Friday for Jahi McMath" A death certificate is the same thing as legally dead. How many people are going to have to tell you you are wrong before you realize the WP:Consensus is that you are wrong and you should concentrate your efforts elsewhere. CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

"A death certificate is the same thing as legally dead" WP:OR no-in this case that is not what it meant at all, and if you look at the article which was referenced, Judge Grillo said that he found McMath to be "brain dead"--the words "legally dead" were not used. same with the other erroneously quoted ref. that I took out.24.0.133.234 (talk) 22:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

CombatWombat42A:It doesn't matter how many people incorrectly tell me that I am wrong, it won't change the facts will it? The mentioned death certificate-we discussed that on this page, it was never completed so it is invalid-(not OR, a fact and there are refs. that back that up AFAIK). Unfortunately, it could even have been MY edits which were incorrect in this article as i did some work on it and there was some confusion. I'm not confused anymore.24.0.133.234 (talk) 22:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

From the wikipedia page for legal death "Legal death is a legal pronouncement by a qualified person that further medical care is not appropriate and that a patient should be considered dead under the law. " From [46]: "Brain death is death," he said, adding, "They don't need permission from the family to take her off, but because the little girl died unexpectedly and so tragically, they're trying to soften the blow and let the family adjust to the reality.", from [47] “A young lady has died. No one takes that in a callous or uncaring manner,” Straus told Superior Court Judge Evelio Grillo, “but she is dead.” from [48]"Ms. McMath is dead and cannot be brought back to life," the hospital said in the memo, adding: "Children's is under no legal obligation to provide medical or other intervention for a deceased person.". That is 2 sourced doctors("by a qualified person") and a hospital saying she is dead("patient should be considered dead"). CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The death certificate is unofficial only because the family has refused to permit an autopsy to determine the cause of death. That fact does not change or nullify the legal finding of death. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

CombatWombat42 Everything you just said is not in dispute. Except for using the WP definition of legal death to define death, and to relate it to what was quoted by Judge Grillo- and that other item that I took out of the article which you keep trying to put back in. One-why is it so important for you to have it your way with that particular term? Everything else you have quoted would be fine as long as it is properly cited and not WP:OR, which in this case, using the term legal death IS WP:OR, especially when it is used as a QUOTE that was NEVER SAID. IMO legal death should probably be linked as see also24.0.133.234 (talk) 23:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't find the phrase "her body" a problem. "Her body" doesn't seem to imply she is alive or dead. Living people have bodies so do dead people. "The body" I'd think would be nonNPOV because "the body" unambiguously refers to a dead person./corpse, but I'm not sure I understand your objection to "her body". --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

OK BoboMC-maybe to you use of the word "body" does not imply a corpse, but then why is it so important to some editors to keep it? "Her" body is preferable to me over "the" body, fine but in my opinion both are ambiguous and purposely misleading. It has been made clear here on this talk page and in the edit notes, that the only purpose for keeping "body", is to falsely imply that the child is a corpse rather than a patient who has been declared permanently brain dead. If the article can be made more neutral for all-sides, I am not against that either but it could get a lot more wordy and confusing. Also-again, in the event that Mcmath does suffer permanent cardiac death-(if she cardiac dies for good), having her correct state of being at that time in the article, will help finish the story of the case by giving the readers better context clues such-as, (while she was brain death, but still being maintained, and then if she does maintain clinical death....you know what I mean here! In the event of permanent cardiac death, the timeline will be much easier for readers to follow if we leave-OUT the "corpse-like"/body references, until if that becomes a part of the story.-24.0.133.234 (talk) 23:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The reliable sources state that what was transferred was a body. We reflect the statements of reliable sources. Someone who is brain-dead is not "a patient," they are dead, as per the overwhelming medicolegal consensus that brain death is death. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Any ideas where to take this?

Anybody have any good ideas where this can be arbitrated? Is there a good syntax MOS board? Seriously, it is pretty clear where most of the editors on this TP stand and I agree with moving-on to other articles, except that this is just wrong and it bothers me. Consensus does not apply if everyone is wrong, including myself-Is there anyone who can just NPOV this whole article?24.0.133.234 (talk) 23:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

When an overwhelming consensus says that your edits are wrong, it is time to step back and consider that you may be, in fact, wrong. Multiple reliable sources discuss the legal ruling that the independent expert and Children's Hospital Oakland were correct and that McMath is dead according to California law. The fringe opposing view that she is not dead is mentioned with due weight, but we will not treat it as true. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Um-yeah except that I am not wrong so it needs to be explained. Do you really think that by calling matters of fact-"fringe" that you are going to be correct here? "Body"-may be open to interpretation, but due to the fuss that is being made over keeping the term rather than avoiding it, I think that speaks for the motive and agenda of editors arguing to keep it. Since when is NPOV and properly quoted references and citations "fringe". What exactly do you mean by that anyways? My only agenda here is NPOV and a factually correct article. I am not arguing for anything "fringe" here period. Just the facts.24.0.133.234 (talk) 01:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Legal death dispute

I have tagged the offending sentences with . Specifically, the items which continue to be warred:

• 1 "On December 24, 2013, Judge Grillo ruled that McMath was legally dead, basing his decision on the medical evidence presented by physicians from Children's Hospital Oakland and from independent expert Paul Fisher, but ruled to keep McMath on mechanical ventilation until December 30, 2013,.[22] "
• 2 " On December 12, 2013, her doctors declared her brain-dead and her family was informed that as she was legally dead[disputed – discuss], life support systems would be removed.[12] "

The addition of these "legally dead" Legal death 24.0.133.234 (talk) 02:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC) statements are based-on WP:OR and more importantly NOT supported by the cited references given.

If I am incorrect here I would really like to know how. My edits keep being reverted/undone, and I am being repeatedly told that 'consensus' is telling me that I am wrong-but I do not see it.24.0.133.234 (talk) 01:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Request for assistance at NOR Noticeboard : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Legal_Death_and_OR_in_Jahi_Mcmath_article 24.0.133.234 (talk) 01:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Point 1: whether or not you (or I, or anyone else) agree with the ruling of legal death is not particularly relevant. What the article states is:

1. that Judge Grillo made that ruling;
2. that he based his decision, in whole or in part, on medical evidence presented by physicians from Children's Hospital Oakland by an independent expert;not in dispute, as far as I can see
3. that he rules to keep McMath on mechanical ventilation until abovementioned date. Not in dispute, as far as I can see
   

As to the ruling of legal death:

• Background information:

• the (medico-)legal meaning of brain death is legal death, at least in the US and thus the state of California (which is what is relevant here). This is per the Uniform Determination of Death Act, adopted by California in 1982 (and thus can also be found as CALIFORNIA CODES HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 7180), which specifically states the following:

"Determination of Death. An individual who has sustained either
(1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or
(2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead.
A determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards." (emphasis mine)

(Can be found in multiple places, amongst others here). Thus, in this context, and in many others, brain death equals legal death. Another two, more secondary sources, confirm this: CNN: Why brain dead is really dead. Brain Dead Is Dead-Jahi McMath Family and Unethical Actions

• It can be reasonably considered factual that as judge of the Superior Court of Alameda County, and especially as judge on this case, Grillo was aware of this legal act and thus of the legal consequences of declaring McMath to be brain dead.
  

• Sourcing:
  

• Several available sources cover the ruling of Judge Grillo, and I believe that there can be no dispute that Judge Grillo ruled that "McMath is brain dead". (Just for reference, however: source used in article,other source)
• However, it can be reasonably stated that while the source used in the article for this sentence heavily implies, based on legal and medical background information, that the ruling of Judge Grillo equals a ruling of legal death, it does not outright state it. Although legally speaking (per above background information, amongst others) brain death equals a form of legal death (with other forms of legal death coexisting), the source itself does neither confirm nor deny it.
• On the other hand, multiple other available sources do outright state this, either by specifically saying that Judge Grillo ruled that McMath is legally dead, or by saying that Judge Grillo ruled that McMath is brain dead and stating that this means a ruling of legal death. (Some of many sources: 1(Directly uses "legally dead" in title; uses "brain dead" throughout body of text, showing that this source ((medico-)legally speaking correctly) considers these to be synonymous); 2 (includes "The news comes despite doctors and previous judges agreeing that there is no way to bring the legally dead teen back" (emphasis mine); "Superior Court Judge Evelio Grillo has agreed with the hospital that Jahi has died.", amongst other things); 3 (which includes the following: "An Alameda County Superior Court Judge allowed numerous outside doctors to conduct tests, and all came to the same conclusion that Jahi could not breathe on her own and all brain activity had ceased. Therefore, she was legally dead."). I can dig up more such sources if needed, but I feel these illustrate the point pretty clearly.)
• Furthermore, the Children's Hospital Oakland have, since the ruling, repeatedly been quoted as saying that this ruling means that Jahi McMath is legally dead. I have been unable to find any response by the Judge or judicial system claiming this is incorrect; nor a response by any other legal expert claiming such, and by only one medical expert—Dr. Paul Bryne—who even then did not outright deny the legal meaning of brain dead, just the medical conclusion that brain dead always means dead. This as opposed to several legal and especially medical experts (some of whom are cited and/or mentioned in the sources above, but I can dig up more references if needed) agreeing with the conclusion that brain dead = (legally) dead.
• Furthermore, the transfer required signing off by a coroner. This would not be the case if McMath was not considered legally dead as a result of Judge Grillo's ruling. (Source for the signing off can be found in the article and probably is covered in at least once source I list above. If you REALLY need me to, I can dig up a source for the second part of the statement as well).

• Conclusion: While it might be a good idea to add an additional source to this statement that outright uses the wording "legally dead" or "legal death", there is plenty of proof that this statement is factually correct: Judge Grillo declared McMath to be brain dead and thus legally dead.

Point 2:

• Awkward wording, but not necessarily factually wrong. I suggest "On December 12, 2013, her doctors declared her brain-dead. Her family was informed that she was legally dead and that, as a result, life support systems would be removed". That way, the statement can be broken up into the following parts:

1. McMath's doctors declared her brain-dead on December 12, 2013. Factual, doubt this is in dispute
2. Her family was informed that she was legally dead See above for the whole legal death part, but that aside, the hospital did inform the family that she was legally dead. See below for more info.
3. Her family was informed that life support systems would be removed as a result of being (considered) brain dead and thus legally dead. Not in dispute as far as I can tell, but honestly, much of the same as point two: it did not actually HAPPEN (or at least, not the way the doctors informed the family it would), but the family WAS informed of that.

• As to point two (and thus ever so slightly point three): Whether or not the family and/or others (or even the whole world) disagree with McMath being legally dead is not relevant; was is relevant is if that was the information given. Which it was. If someone informs me that the moon is made of cheese, I was informed that the moon is made of cheese. Regardless of how correct or incorrect the information itself may be.

• Conclusion: Slight rewording wouldn't be amiss here, do wonders here. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 03:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed and I have implemented your suggested wording. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Please show me where it is stated that Grillo "ruled" that McMath was "legally" dead. Please show me where it is stated that McMath's family "was informed that she was legally dead". Can you please give a reliable source that confirms these statements? Anything less, and you are insisting that your long-winded synthesis of original research be included with citations and references that DO NOT SAY THAT24.0.133.234 (talk) 05:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

"Judge Declares Oakland Teen Jahi McMath Legally Dead" - KNTV News. It's not "original synthesis" when a reliable secondary source has made it for us. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

JFTR-I see no where in that article where the judge "declared", ruled, or said that in any way! We had the court docs. here at one point. The judges ruling is whatever the ruling says, which I am pretty sure is that he agreed with the doctors and the hospital that Mcmath had suffered brain death. Apparently that "declaration" of legal death, was OR, and a synthesis made by the NBC-affiliate. If you want to work that into the article-good luck, but there is still nothing to confirm or actually quote judge Grillo "declaring"-"legal death". I think that we may need to look at the ruling? But we decided here earlier that the rulings and court docs. were primary sources, so we left them out of the article.24.0.133.234 (talk) 05:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:OR prohibits only original synthesis — that is, synthesis never before published in a reliable source and created anew by a Wikipedia editor. Since we have a reliable source stating it, we may use that source's synthesis. It is not an original synthesis and is acceptable on Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem introducing legal death in California, (but we already cleaned-up the article because of jurisdictional and global problems with the term being applied unilaterally) vs clinical death into the article. In fact in my opinion that is the cruxt (sp?) of the case. But attributing dialogues and apparent quotes, statements, conversations, and rulings, that are not referenced, except for one sensationalistic headline with nothing in the context to verify, is false. I would agree with the suggested ""On December 12, 2013, her doctors declared her brain-dead. Her family was informed that she was legally dead and that, as a result, life support systems would be removed". with, she was legally dead and that, as a result, being removed because we do not have a reference to this "legal death" information being conveyed to them. The statement paints a picture of a conversation happening that is not referenced anywhere as far as i can tell. The ref. that were cited stated that the family was notified that the hospital stated that they had the right to remove treatment, and the family decided to take it to court, and they won.Maybe the judge did rule "legal death"--but right now i don't know exactly where that specific ruling is and none of the references state that point clearly so why should WP?24.0.133.234 (talk) 05:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The following references confirm that the hospital did inform the family that she was legally dead:

• Mail Online/Dailymail: "Hospital told her heartbroken family that they will switch off her life support as she has been declared legally dead.";
• Contra Costa Times, article by Oakland Tribune: "Jahi spent Tuesday on a ventilator. By 2 a.m. Wednesday, doctors said she had swelling in her brain, and Thursday, she was declared legally brain-dead, family members said.";
• San Jose Mercury News: "The hospital says she is legally dead. That they can legally stop her breathing" (Quote from a letter by McMath's mother. I'd say that if anyone is qualified to state whether or not the family has been informed, it's the family (and the hospital)).
• There are several more such sources, but I hope these three will suffice?

As to the "one sensationalist headline with nothing in the context to verify" - I STRONGLY disagree. There is plenty in the text and context to verify that headline. Although the headline may be the only place in the article where the specific combination of words "Judge declares [...] legally dead" is used, there certainly are multiple other places in the article where they refer to it, including (but strictly speaking not limited to) the following:

• "A judge ruled Tuesday that a 13-year-old Oakland girl who has been on life support since suffering bleeding and a heart attack following a tonsillectomy "meets all the criteria of brain death."" - 'Combined with the title, shows strongly that KNTV considers such to mean she IS legally dead.
• "Although the judge ruled he could not force the hospital to continue the teen's care, an existing restraining order keeps Jahi on life support until 5 p.m. Monday, giving the family time to appeal his decision." (emphasis mine) - Keywords: could not. The only circumstances in which it is impossible to force a hospital to continue care is if the patient is legally and medically considered to be dead.
• "[..] judge selected an independent doctor to determine whether Jahi McMath shows any signs of life." (emphasis mine) - In this context (namely, if she is or is not brain dead, which is what the doctor was selected to evaluate), this shows again that brain death is considered to mean death.
• "The judge said he doubts that he will be the final word on the matter and has expressed his condolences to the family." (emphasis mine) - you don't condolence people in regards to a person unless said person is dead. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

YES-thank-you AddWittyNameHerethis ref. does fit with family being told that Jahi was legally dead. http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_24773831/oakland-emotional-letter-from-jahi-mcmaths-mom-keep?source=pkg I am adding it at the appropriate spot.24.0.133.234 (talk) 03:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Glad to have been of help. That's one issue solved. Means we're making progress. Filled out the reference more in-depth, by the way. Makes it easier to find it back should the url change at some point in the future. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 04:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Joan Rivers vs Jahi....or NY vs Ca Cultural differences in "plug-pulling"

This talk page is for improving this article, not for random discussions about the topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/joan-rivers-private-hospital-room-professionally-decorated-friend-article-1.1927433?cid=bitly So no one is currently saying that Rivers is "Brain Dead"-or if that has been determined-or not. But, aside from the fact that Rivers is a global celebrity, IF Rivers is permanently brain dead, Jahi and Joan would share a diagnoses and they both are on life-support machines. Being in NYC--it is startling to me how different the cultural attitude between the 2 cases are. In Jahi's case, people expressed disgust, claiming that Mcmath's family were trying to keep a "dead" corpse alive, wasting medical resources etc. In NYC---as per law there, "pulling-the-plug", is up to the patient or their family and a family would not be publicly castigated for prolonging the machines. For Jahi--that option had to be decided in court because by Ca law, the hospital gets to decide. Just thought I would post this here to illustrate the cultural differences and perceptions that editors should be aware-of. Being from NJ myself-as an editor, the cultural differences between the way the Mcmath case was described and how "pulling-the-plug" is left-up to the family in cases that I have known about here----well it was shocking to me in a way that California just seems to have an entirely different perspective. Not trying to forumize the talk page here just hoping to point-out that NPV will help the article and readers, especially considering culturally different backgrounds24.0.133.234 (talk) 18:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

lede

The funny thing is that my whole point of editing that article is to try and conform to NPOV. Can you please explain to me exactly how you see where my edit was biased or more biased than the one that I changed? I am not opposed to other editors changing the lede on that article, and my last edit did take-out some other edits that may be better-worded for the lede , but I had worked pretty hard at trying to fix what I saw as biased, and boldly edited, than another editor came-along and undid my edits with BLP? (did not make sense to me)...and changed it WHOLY /undid the entire NPOV-worded edit that I had done and replaced it with BIAS and misrepresenting the topic of the article, and in my opinion one that was not as helpful to WP readers. I'm psting BOTH versions of the lede here and if you really think #2 is better I would like to know how?

(1)The Jahi McMath case centers on a girl who was diagnosed with brain death following surgery, when she was 13-years-old in California, and the bioethical debate surrounding her family's rejection of the medicolegal finding of irreversible, permanent brain death in this case, and their efforts to maintain her body on mechanical ventilation because she is not clinically dead and the hospital's efforts to terminate treatment

OR

(2)The Jahi McMath case centers on a 13-year-old girl in California who was declared brain-dead following surgery, and the bioethical debate surrounding her family's rejection of the medicolegal findings of death in this case, and their efforts to maintain her body on mechanical ventilation and other measures, which her parents considered to constitute life support of their child but which her doctors considered to be futile treatment of a deceased person. 24.0.133.234 (talk) 19:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

A person is not "diagnosed" with brain death. It is not a disease or condition, it is a state of being. It is accurate and NPOV to state that she was declared brain-dead, because she was. By definition, brain death is irreversible and permanent. Therefore, your version is both inaccurate and unnecessarily wordy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

What NorthBySouthBaranof said plus I have seen no sources say "she is not clinically dead". CombatWombat42 (talk) 19:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

CombatWombat42-She was not clinically dead when she was moved from the Children's hospital back in January. Maybe it was not said specifically worded as "clinical death"/permanent cardiac death, rigor-mortis and beyond..., because it was obvious? But that was the whole point of the case from the way that I understand it.

NorthBySouthBaranof-brain death or permanent irreversible brain-death most certainly IS a "diagnoses" as opposed to a "declaration".(who declared it lol) Mcmath was diagnosed by more than one doctor and with the prescribed number of different tests needed in California and by the Children's hospital policy. That was part of what bothered me with the lede. I disagree with you as far as "brain death" being a "state of being" anyways-too ambiguous-(is it temporary or permanent? complete? irreversible?....)....and anyways I thought that editors on WP were supposed to improve articles which is what I was trying to do, yet you insist on taking all of the improvements that i edited into the lede and putting-back the awkward, dis-informational, lack-of-informational one.

NorthBySouthBaranof-Also your statement that "By definition, brain death is irreversible and permanent" -that is INCORRECT just so you know. Why would we want to delete the EXACT condition that Mcmath was diagnosed-with anyways? In her case, she was diagnosed with irreversible permanent whole brain death.Why be cheap with the words that describe exactly what they said she has?

Also-"the hospital's efforts to terminate treatment"---I don't remember who edited that in, but that was the other side of the case. The hospital was pretty clear on that, they did not want to continue treating Mcmath. Why would we leave-out a clear explanation of the case in the lede? This sentence---->"which her parents considered to constitute life support of their child but which her doctors considered to be futile treatment of a deceased person." is just messy to me, awkward, ungrammatical, and misleading not NPOV, and I did not feel that it belonged in the lede, so I boldly edited it. My version-(number 1) was less "wordy" btw. 24.0.133.234 (talk) 22:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, no, the statement was arranged as it was specifically to represent each point of view. The parents viewed it as life support, the hospital viewed it as futile treatment of a dead person.

Brain death is irreversible and permanent, by definition. Please see the reliable sources cited in our handy article on Brain death. Your declaration that it is "INCORRECT" is both unsourced and itself incorrect. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

UM-did you happen to read the WP Brain deatharticle that you just referred-to here? And please notice that the ref.s in the lede paragraph there explicitly refer-to "diagnoses"-of bd-edited to add24.0.133.234 (talk) 02:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC) And please note that ICM etc.has BD categorized which is by default a "diagnoses")). Quote from that same WP article "Brain death is used as an indicator of legal death in many jurisdictions, but it is defined inconsistently(italics mine24.0.133.234 (talk) 01:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)). Various parts of the brain may keep living when others die, and the term "brain death" has been used to refer to various combinations. For example, although a major medical dictionary says that "brain death" is synonymous with "cerebral death" (death of the cerebrum), the US National Library of Medicine Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) system defines brain death as including the brainstem. The distinctions can be important because, for example, in someone with a dead cerebrum but a living brainstem, the heartbeat and ventilation can continue unaided, whereas in whole-brain death (which includes brain stem death), only life support equipment would keep those functions going."----so, to eliminate the ambiguity, I disagree with you on this again. Brain death from the way that I understand it, when used as a legal term, is defined by whatever criteria the local and state rules use to define "permanent irreversible brain death" with no hope of regaining consciousness. That diagnoses can be reached in different ways depending on where a person happens to be and what tests are used to determine such a condition. I prefer using the exact criteria that was used in Mcmath's case-(and noting so)-and NOT being "general about it, meaning this case specifically), to not confuse readers with for example with ischemic stroke diagnoses with a hope of full recovery ("dead"-areas in an otherwise recoverable brain), or other ailments.24.0.133.234 (talk) 01:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

"The diagnosis of brain death needs to be rigorous, in order to be certain that the condition is irreversible. Legal criteria vary, but in general they require neurological examinations by two independent physicians. The exams must show complete and irreversible absence of brain function (brain stem function in UK),[14] and may include two isoelectric (flat-line) EEGs 24 hours apart (less in other countries where it is accepted that if the cause of the dysfunction is a clear physical trauma there is no need to wait that long to establish irreversibility). The widely-adopted[15] Uniform Determination of Death Act in the United States attempts to standardize criteria. The patient should have a normal temperature and be free of drugs that can suppress brain activity if the diagnosis is to be made on EEG criteria."

Jahi McMath was declared brain-dead in full accordance with the California procedures enacted under the Uniform Determination of Death Act. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Well-I just re-arranged it a little. Now the sentence is too long imo, but more correct. If anyone wants to take a go at it that is fine with me but can we please not edit-in incorrect or incomplete info. that gives an impression of taking one side or the other? 24.0.133.234 (talk) 23:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

24.0.133.234, you were the one waring over semantics in the previous section, it is quite clear to every other editor that the current working for the lead is fine and you are disrupting the encylopedia to make a point. As for "declared dead" read "Since she was declared brain-dead..." from [49] CombatWombat42 (talk) 23:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

"declared" vs "diagnosed"----so what if "declared" is used in a ref.? "diagnosed" is more accurate, and is what happened. It is a matter of semantics yes and to me, "declared" just sounds less informative than "diagnosed". Would someone say that a patient is "declared" to have (insert name of diagnosis here)? So I have to ask WHY it keeps getting rv? Disrupting to make a point? WHAT point would that be??????? Because I like "diagnosed" better than "declared"--I cannot even believe that these are serious statements, although I am trying to AGF here. WHAT POINT IS IT THAT YOU ARE IMPLYING THAT I AM TRYING TO WEASEL-IN HERE? JFTR--I have never disagreed that Mcmath was diagnosed with permanent irreversible brain death. So I just don't get where it appears that i am biased. Confused? Yeah, I have been confused over the biased wording in the article especially because of my admitted cultural differences-the whole dead-not exactly dead was VERY confusing to me because where I live we have different laws and practices so it was really confusing for me to see how this case was interpreted by people in California. Any edits on my part are done in trying to find correct and accurate statements so that the article is factually correct-conforms to NPOV, and makes sense to readers. 24.0.133.234 (talk) 01:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

She was declared dead in accordance with the law in the state of California. A registered physician recorded a time of death and a judge of competent jurisdiction has ruled that to be correct. Therefore, it is well-sourced, specific and entirely accurate to note that Jahi McMath was declared dead. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I never said that she wasn't "declared" to be "dead". I could "declare" that you are dead-but without a diagnoses, it would just be a statement not a fact. My objection to "declared" is that in this instance it is a WP:WEASEL 24.0.133.234 (talk) 02:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC), that it implies that Mcmath was permanently clinically dead when she absolutely was not-and that the article and WP users could be better served by changing it to the more correct "diagnosed". Again I have to ask--you have accused me of having a biased agenda here and i would like to know what biased agenda I am being accused-of trying to promote? That she wasn't clinically dead when she was "declared" to be legally dead? That isn't a bias-that is a fact.24.0.133.234 (talk) 02:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not a "weasel word" - it is the specific, accurate and correct word. She was declared dead under California law. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is a and unless there is a good reason why the word should not be changed, I have a mind to do just this---> in the article. "Declarations" of death have already been discussed here as being confused with Declared death in absentia i think. That the media used the word, "declared dead"-in headlines and subtitles mainly, is not a quotable reference, per se since we would only be "quoting" the words used by the media to describe the events. Did anyone say specifically, "I declare, Mcmath is brain dead"-No. But we do have ref. and cites where the "diagnoses" of brain death according to California and hospital policy law was made. And I further accuse "declared" brain dead being used in the article in the context where it is being used to be a non seq. and intentionally at this point misleading double-speak of some kind-why would there be an argument about changing it to "diagnosed"? Also in the previously mentioned WP:WEASEL section, please note that "declaration" is highlighted as an EXAMPLE of a ww.24.0.133.234 (talk) 04:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

24.0.133.234, did you learn nothing from the RFC I wrote about your behavior? Consensus on the talk page has been consistently against your viewpoints since this article was first created. You need to let this go. Funcrunch (talk) 04:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

What viewpoint are you referring to and I do not need to let this go how dare you24.0.133.234 (talk) 05:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Then you will probably end up blocked from editing the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is based on consensus, and there is a consensus that your proposed edits do not improve the article. You need to drop the stick. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Please stop directing comments about this topic at myself personally. The talk page of this article is not the place for your stupid games. Please stay on the topic of article improvements and the article on this page.24.0.133.234 (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I've just heard about this case and I thought I'd come in to drop in my views really because this IP user is very clearly pushing their agenda and opinions in the article. I'm all for having a NPOV and I think the lead in does a fine job of that at the moment as it explains the viewpoint of the parents and the hospital, but this user is making it very difficult by just adding in what they believe is right without citing sources. IP user, you keep saying that Jahi is not "clinically dead" but this does not make any sense. Her organs are only being kept running by mechanical ventilation and once she's taken off, her organs will stop running. She has already passed on, unfortunately. You can only die by one type of death - by brain death, by clinical death, or something else. You can't die by both. Of course, I could very well be mistaken and if so, please provide me with some sources that show me you can be brain dead but without being clinically dead at the same time. I would be supportive of you changing the introduction if you can provide sources of the Jahi McMath story where it explains that she is "clinically dead" and that she has "irreversible brain death", and that might seem more neutral. NPOV has to be backed up by sources. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Createastorm (talk • contribs) 18:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing your opinions here. One thing that stood-out is that you ask basically that Mcmath's condition in the present tense be provided, which right there is a problem for this article. Please notice that the article is about the legal case, which seems to have been dropped since Mcmath was moved-(reportedly to a hospital in NJ)---but even current reports are (in my opinion) really "iffy" and care has to be taken about the source because not much verified news about Mcmath or the case specifically has followed--------so for the purpose of the article most reference to Mcmath's condition is how she was described upon release from the Children's hospital and while the case was active. That Mcmath was diagnosed with brain death has not been disputed as there are many references on the talk page and in the article that verify that fact. She was not diagnosed with permanent clinical death at any point, unless there is a challenge to the definition of clinical death? I would not challenge the term permanent "cardiac death" being used as a substitute for clinical death if use of clinical death is controversial or too confusing for the article. But the fact is that although she was diagnosed with an irreversible loss of consciousness,-brain death, her physical body was able to be maintained in a living condition.

As for providing examples-that has been done already, on this page and elsewhere. Healing wounds, growing hair, in children-growth and other examples should be convincing evidence that a body is alive, so I don't know exactly what you are looking-for? Your Q:"provide me with some sources that show me you can be brain dead but without being clinically dead at the same time"--um-Jahi Mcmath the subject of the case would be an example. She was clinically alive when she was released from the hospital. Did you check the linked article Clinical death?24.0.133.234 (talk) 19:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the two versions of the lede, #2 is more neutral. The distinction between "diagnosed" and "declared" brain dead has already been covered above (and as was previously discussed, "declared" is the usual usage and is what is found in RS). Of greater concern to me is this part: rejection of the medicolegal finding of irreversible, permanent brain death in this case, and their efforts to maintain her body on mechanical ventilation because she is not clinically dead and the hospital's efforts to terminate treatment.

First, as has also been previously discussed, brain death is by definition irreversible and so that adjective is not required. To include the adjective against the commonly-accepted definition makes the phrase non-neutral.

Second, to say in Wikipedia's voice that "she is not clinically dead" is POV-pushing and non-neutral because Wikipedia does not decide whether or not she's dead; we only report what reliable sources say, which is that she was declared dead and her family and their supporters believed otherwise.

Third, saying "the hospital's efforts to terminate treatment" does not accurately and fully state the issues at hand and so is, again, POV-pushing and non-neutral. The family attempted to force the hospital to provide mechanical ventilation and a feeding tube via legal means; this is a fundamental part of this case and is not reflected in the #1 version of the lede.

Per these three points, lede version #1 is not neutral and version #2 is preferred.

We've been over and over and over and over and over and over and over these same issues, 24.0.133.234, and consensus is against you. Please let this go. --Ca2james (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I did not ask for the article to be provided in present tense and I don't know how you deduced that from my post. I just said you were pushing your agenda and opinions in the introduction.

She was not diagnosed as "clinically dead" because she died from brain death and you can only die from one death! That's how it works and that's why no articles has said she is not clinically dead as you state. In fact, I google Jahi McMath and clinically dead and nothing comes up! Her body is only in a "living condition" because it is attached to machines, this is the problem you have with your "clinical death" argument. If she were removed from machines, her organs would stop. She is not able to sustain her heartbeat, her breathing, etc by herself. Why? Because the brain does that. So she is dead! I don't question the definition of clinical death, as I understand it to be the cessation of the heart beating, as well as breathing and blood circulation, but I think you don't understand that it can't happen to someone who is already deceased. Did you read the Wikipedia page you gave me? It says in the introduction, At the onset of clinical death, consciousness is lost within several seconds. Measurable brain activity stops within 20 to 40 seconds.[. Jahi does not have brain activity and does not have consciousness, therefore she cannot undergo clinical death, which is something you admit. There is also a considerable amount on the brain that I won't publish here because it's huge, but it's about causing potential brain damage and even brain death. Yes, Jahi's heart will eventually stop, but it will be because it either wears out from the machines pumping it, or the machines are stopped. She has already passed on and won't pass on when her heart stops. Jahi is not in a coma, she can't come back. Just because her body can be maintained by machines, doesn't mean that she isn't dead and "cardiac death" is just as agenda pushing. By saying that she's not clinically dead I think you think she's alive, is that correct? Createastorm (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The logical idea that someone can "only die once"-does not apply to this article because it is about the case of Mcmath's family vs the Children's hospital but this doesn't even make sense..." (-death)I think you don't understand that it can't happen to someone who is already deceased." (you are RIGHT! I don't understand the incomprehensible,just twisting words and legally declaring crap does not change FACTS) For the purpose of the article-it really doesn't matter whether I think she is alive or not, that is my point. That there ARE two sides, and that the article should present each side without editor's opinions is my point. "cardiac death", "clinical death"....or any other correct way of phrasing the "not dead" POV for her condition, is better than editing-in confusing phrases like "her body was still alive and the hospital called her a "grotesque" decomposing corpse which was not true either because her body maintained and continued many life-functions, and the family legally prevented the hospital from terminating the life in her body." or other ways of phrasing the argument. If there are other correct ways of describing someone who is not-"all the way dead" that would help readers understand the problems with the case, I don't have problems with that either-but the article is no place to argue the points of the case. Making the side of the family look like the minority opinion, like some fringe, ignorant opinions is also something that does NOT belong in the article. Their side was that they had a child diagnosed with brain death who was still "technically" alive and they wanted to prevent the death of her physical body. It doesn't matter if consensus on Wikipedia declares that Mcmath is dead. That doesn't change the fact that she is not clinically dead. we need to leave our opinions out of it.24.0.133.234 (talk) 13:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)