This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.
A recent editor added the following lines which I'm about to remove, and I just want to explain why here since it won't fit in an edit summary.
the most common position is that if either the heart is beating or the person is breathing he is alive and nothing may be done to hasten death.
There is controversy on whether it is required to institute heroic measures to maintain life if the person is clearly moments from death, but agreement that once instituted they may not be stopped as that would be equivalent to murder. The Mishna mentions as an example that if a person is alive only because of an annoying noise, or because of an uncomfortable pillow, the noise may not be stopped or the pillow adjusted.
Good stuff, but not really relevant to his particular case. The issue at hand is whether or not Motl is alive, not what should be done to prolong (or not prolong) life. (The above would be relevant if, for example, Motl was in the same situation as Terry Schaivo, but he isn't).
If the legal standard is that he was brain dead on November 4th, why is the time of death listed as November 15th, when his heart stopped? I'm changing the "death" section to "cardiopulmonary death" and the time of death to the 4th. I imagine this is controversial, though, which is why I'm giving the heads up. Anyone have other thoughts?Silenceisgod (talk) 15:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree it's controversial. Legally he's dead then, rationally he's dead then... but given death isn't really discussed rationally (hence cases like this by religious nuts [tautology detected]) and given his date of birth is only a year, I'm going to just put the year back. I'll notify you on yer talk page someone has finally replied! EggCentric 22:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)