Talk:Iron lung

Untitled
https://www.wnyc.org/story/from-polio-to-covid--the-evolution-of-intensive-care — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.63.90.74 (talk) 10:39, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Comment 1
The line: 'The use of iron lungs has almost completely ceased' prompted me to go to google to search for who's still using one. How about listing those few living individuals who are still using an iron lung?

I wanted to ask first, since it would be my first post, and I'm unsure of protocols.


 * Negative pressure ventilators are still made (at least two different brands), so I think the sentence you mention is a factual error. --Ekko 11:24, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

According to an article in the July 2005 National Geographic, "...about 40 people in the US still depend on iron lungs to give them the oxygen they need to stay alive." More information on polio and iron lungs can be found in the article "The Polio Battles", in the Geographica section of this issue.

Jennifer Duarte Seattle, WA

For a "typical" iron-lung patient, did they need the maching 7x24, or was it a supplementary tool only used part of the time? --TheJeffMiller 01:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, iron lungs are still used for postoperative ventilaton of children after certain kinds of heart surgery --Ekko 10:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

There is one person left with the iron lung, and his name is Paul Alexander. -Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.213.208.72 (talk) 14:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

question
Are there any lifestyle alterations required due to treatment or technique?

What would you think? They are stuck in an iron lung with only their head sticking out. Do you think they go down to the bar every night at 9:30? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.13.83 (talk) 21:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

question
For how long are patients required to stay in the apparatus? How do they live in the lung if they are required to stay in it for 24 hours daily. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.203.251.58 (talk) 02:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

question
Why would anyone be in an iron lung when modern ventilators are available?
 * I cite from the article: the iron lung mimics the physiologic action of breathing: by periodically altering intrathoracic pressure, it causes air to flow in and out of the lungs. The iron lung is a form of non-invasive therapy..The key words are physiologic and non-invasive. --Ekko 08:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

However, in certain rare conditions, such as Ondine's curse (in which failure of the medullary respiratory centers at the base of the brain result in patients having no autonomic control of breathing), the machine still finds use. I cite from the article too. Does that answer why? AllStarZ 02:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Those who have Ondine's Curse do not need a ventilator when they are awake, only when the sleep. The iron lung works well for them because there are no tubes to insert or remove, and they can sleep lying in the iron lung.--RLent 19:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Could it be helpful to patience of Gullien Barre Syndrom ?

Iron lung is not necessarily an old ventilator
Negative pressure ventilators are still manufactured. So when the article says that they are still used, despite the problems with replacement parts, this is nonsense. And positive pressure ventilators are not a new thing either. Heinrich Dräger patented his Pulmotor (a simple positive pressure ventilator) in 1907. --Ekko 07:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The University of Virginia has a great web exhibit on the iron lung that gives documented examples of artificial ventilation dating back to 1782. And at least some models of iron lung have been discontinued in the last years and decades, and here's a source that indicates that at least one patient was advised to buy a new model because replacement parts would become hard to find for her old one.  I do agree with you that the article is misleading on these and other issues, probably wrong on others, and in general unreliable because there are no sources given.  It needs to be revised… please feel free… or I will if I find some time.  EsdnePyaJ 21:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So many articles, so few hours.... In my schedule I plan to have my excellent (norwegian) article ready by autumn, so after that perhaps... --Ekko 07:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

How'd they "go to the bathroom"?
Just curious about how iron lung patients managed to, well, you know, if they were in the iron lung 24/7... &mdash; Rickyrab | Talk 17:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Since the diseases that put them in an iron lung often involve paralysis, I would assume they are catheritized like other paralyzed patients.LiPollis (talk) 17:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

"Wouldn't work in an iron lung"
Is it worth making mention of this expression for laziness? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.37.212.89 (talk) 01:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible error "fill" or "fall"
The article states: This, in turn, causes the pressure of the air inside the lungs to fill (it becomes negative, relative to the atmosphere),

Is the meaning really that the air pressure inside the lung falls which causes the lungs to fill up when the air pressure inside the chamber increases. I'm not sure of the meaning of "causes the pressure of the air to fill". I hope someone knowledgable can correct or change if needed. I'm not goning to make any change to the article myself due to a total lack of qualification.

Seki1949 (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Change article title to "iron lung"?
According to WP:CommonName articles should use the most common name for their article titles. For instance, see the Big Dig for the Central Artery/Tunnel Project in Boston, or Bill Clinton for the president (or Mother Teresa, North Korea, the Nazi Party). Therefore shouldn't this article's title be "iron lung" and not "negative pressure ventilator"? --Bruce Hall (talk) 04:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree completely. Iron lungs in the news a lot recently and none of the mainstream news articles use the term "Negative pressure ventilator." -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 20:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I also concur. Due to the polio epidemic of the 1950s, anyone living at that time probably knows the term all too well.  BMJ-pdx (talk) 01:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Globalize
Entirely US Centric. This article's parochialism is astounding. It has even swiped and obliterated the common name "Iron Lung"! Eddaido (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to update pages to represent a more global view. Authors, in all countries, tend to focus on their own region. It's basic human nature. Because Wikipedia began in the US, many of the English Wikipedia pages are US-centric. This is because the earliest editors were American and Americans still make up the largest portion of the editor-base, by individual country. The US also happens to be one of the most populous countries in the English-speaking world. However, the ultimate goal of Wikipedia is to have pages which represent a global perspective.

There's even a tag which will categorize a page as needing an expanded perspective. Using this tag will help global users, who are looking to globalize content, discover that the page needs to be updated. If you lack the expertise or the time to research and edit the page, please consider adding to the top of the page. This is much more likely to accomplish this goal than creating a talk page.

Wikipedia relies on a global editor base to globalize articles using their unique expertise of the region. There is no need to create a talk page with a shaming tone which demands that another author invest a great deal of time researching another region. The tone of this talk page to elicit a knee-jerk feeling of "Well why don't YOU do it YOURSELF, if it's so important to you."

It is, however, acceptable to create a talk page discussing the need to globalize and encouraging editors from around the world to contribute. But it is important to use a neutral, non-aggressive tone if you want people to cooperate.

This suggestion goes for every Wikipedian, please try to avoid creating talk pages while angry or frustrated. While isolated negative incidents do exist, the general community of Wikipedia is not intending to ignore or disregard any region of the world.

ParamediCate (talk) 07:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Here is the wikipage explaining how and when to use the globalize tag: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Globalize

ParamediCate (talk) 07:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Mentioned for historical reasons- not in use today!
Iron lungs are not used today. Its been many decades since they were replaced by more sophisticated devices. However, in the past they saved many lives esp. from Polio. 688dim (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There are still some people using them today. About 10 in the US alone. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Iron lung. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081022162511/http://www.cnn.com:80/2008/US/05/28/iron.lung.death.ap/index.html? to http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/28/iron.lung.death.ap/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Biphasic cuirass ventilation
This article has for Biphasic cuirass ventilation "Main article: Biphasic cuirass ventilation", however that is a redirect to Mechanical ventilation which only mentions it in section 'Negative pressure machines'... which starts with "Main article: Negative pressure ventilator", but that is a redirect back to Iron lung. Batternut (talk) 00:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I had in mind mentioning Alexander Graham Bell's prototype cuirass, as historical interest (source ) - but where should it go? Batternut (talk) 00:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Wrongly labelled image
The second image down labelled "Iron lung ward filled with polio patients", widely copied on the Internet, is actually from a staged shot of iron lungs not of a hospital ward according to this page https://amhistory.si.edu/polio/historicalphotos/index.htm Also discussed on a pro-vaccine page. It is illustrative and not referred to in the text, so I propose removing it. --Hartley Patterson (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting links. I tend to agree with removal of the image from this article. Batternut (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I came here to make the same suggestion and give the same link. Either the picture info should be corrected to reflect the fact that it's a publicity photo, or the photo should be removed completely. Country Wife~enwiki (talk) 05:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Image now removed. Batternut (talk) 09:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

As always, feel free to be bold in changing images and their captions if you believe the change is necessary! ParamediCate (talk) 07:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Iron lung. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110615142114/http://www3.lehigh.edu/engineering/about/drinker.asp to http://www3.lehigh.edu/engineering/about/drinker.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071223223131/http://www.fdcw.unimaas.nl/personal/WebSitesMWT/Wackers/proefschrift.html to http://www.fdcw.unimaas.nl/personal/WebSitesMWT/Wackers/proefschrift.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iron lung. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090423113840/http://www.stemnet.nf.ca/~dpower/resp/exchange.htm to http://www.stemnet.nf.ca/~dpower/resp/exchange.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Clearer lede & new 'Design & function' section
I agree with the flag saying "This article's lead section does not adequately summarize key points of its contents," and so I've overhauled the lede -- adding a simple description of what the device is (why wasn't this there before?), with refs cited for the added material.

Three detailed paragraphs at the end of the lede were moved into their own new subsection: "Design and function," and a more fundamentally descriptive opening two paragraphs were added to that section, with ref cites.

To that section, I've also added info on the powering of the iron lung, and summary paragraphs about large and small variations on the iron lung (again, with ref cites, though I'd like to see some better refs on the small "exovent" / "Cuirass ventilator").


 * ~ Penlite (talk) 12:49, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Fixed numerous errors in lede, 1st paragraph.
There were numerous errors in the original 1st paragraph of the lede.

The 1st sentence originally read:
 * A negative pressure ventilator, also known as iron lung (colloquialism) or  pulmotor (generic trademark), is a mechanical respirator

This sentence had two fundamental errors:
 * It implied that all "negative pressure ventilators" were "iron lungs," when, in fact, iron lungs are just one type of NPV. There are several others, some itemized in the source (a professional medical journal) cited in my revision of that sentence. (As soon as I can, i'll recreate the "negative pressure ventilator" page, which currently redirects here, and list, on that page, the various types of NPVs, including iron lung, with appropriate wikilinks. But if anyone can get to it before me, go for it. (Strongly recommend looking at the first several refs cited in this article for various NPV devices to list in the NPV article.)
 * Stated that the "pulmotor" was the same thing as an iron lung / negative-pressure ventilator. It is a radically different device, and is more focused on positive pressure ventilation (directly forcing air into the lungs through the airway), than on negative (drawing air from the lungs by negative pressure -- partial vacuum) -- though it does both. Moreover, the Pulmotor works entirely by directly altering pressure and flow on the person's airway, while the iron lung operates by directly altering pressure on the person's torso.

The 2nd sentence in lede also had a couple of major misstatements. It said the patient in an iron lung could...: These two things are essentially the OPPOSITE of what is happening, per several of the cited sources. The iron lung forces the person's body to inhale and exhale, as a result of abnormal external forces that it generates -- as several of the cited refs clearly explain. While the patient may have the ability to contribute to the breathing, through their own physical action, that autonomous act is not made possible by the iron lung, and the patient is not entirely breathing "on his or her own," let alone in a "normal manner."
 * "...breathe on his or her own."
 * "...breathe... in a normal manner"
 * ~ Penlite (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Covid-19
It seems to me, an iron lung would be preferable to a ventilator. It seems a lot less intrusive to the patient. Am I crazy? 108.200.234.93 (talk) 18:44, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Content dispute
I've fully protected in the WP:WRONG VERSION for 12 hours to give interested editors a chance to talk. Please bring the discussion here: it's really not ripe for ANI at present. If possible, could those of you who have an opinion please point out the key sources relevant to the disputed material, and try to seek some consensus on forms of wording that all could find acceptable. If you reach a conclusion before the 12 hours are up, then please ping me to lift the protection early. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Short-term objective: per WP:ONUS, obtains a consensus here to reinsert the contested material, which, per WP:MEDRS, will be composed of either review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies.  ——  SN  54129  18:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Long-term objective: The article will be rewritten so all the sourcing is fully compliant with WP:MEDRS, and will be sourced to either review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies. ——  SN  54129  18:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Worth remembering that large parts of the subject are as much mechanical engineering as medical, and particular facts can be legitimately cited to stuff which isn’t handled so much in medical sources. It is also worth noting that medical history is often better in the very short term, and the longer term. In the middle ground, where immediacy is lost, but pecuniary liability isn’t, sourcing often gets sparser. Qwirkle (talk) 19:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that short-, middle- and long-term history must all be fully sourced to MEDRS requirements, yes.  ——  SN  54129  09:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Please see my detailed response to this issue, posted in response to the various remarks at:  ~ Penlite (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * On the advice of RexxS, I'm reposting my reply (previously posted 18:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC) to the remarks in the Administrator's noticeboard). I'm not looking for a fight -- just a practical and constructive solution. ~ Penlite (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This section thread is (apparently) mostly about my recent edits to the "Iron lung" article (particularly my last several hours of editing), and the extensive trashing of them by Taresantia, within an hour of their last post (I was in the process of gathering the appropriate major media and medical journal ref cites -- nearly all of them from sources already cited in the article -- for the lists criticized here, while, unbeknownst to me, my edits were being trashed). So I appreciate the notice, that I just received, that I might be interested in this exchange.


 * In attempting to provide useful, relevant, timely and encyclopedic information about this urgently important subject, I admit to some rather poor attention to certain Wikipedia traditions and standards, and was not even aware of some of them, particularly WP:MEDRS, which I stumbled across just in the last few hours. Frankly, if Taresantia had been a little slower on the draw, she would have found, within hours, that every item on the list would have been documented from substantial (mostly medical journal) sources.


 * However, while gathering the ref cites, I referred to a companion article I'd been editing: Negative pressure ventilator.  It was an article that had been incorrectly omitted and redirected to "Iron lung" (as the NPV article now documents clearly, "Iron lung" is merely a subset of "Negative pressure ventilator"). Instead of finding my recent edits intact there, I found that they, too were trashed -- by Taresantia.


 * Reeling from the loss of massive amounts (many hours) of work, I redirected my focus on trying to understand and evaluate those changes, and study up quickly on the relevant Help and WP:MOS pages, and begin to form an appropriate response to them. Eventually, I decided to, instead, get back to finishing the "Iron lung" Advantages/disadvantages list (adding the not-yet-posted reference citations) -- only to find that work trashed, too.


 * And, while trying to make sense of that, I get the late invitation to this roasting.


 * Let's be clear about my objectives: Provide relevant, important, timely, valid, well-documented and comprehensible information, about an important subject, of particularly urgent global importance.


 * I realize, now, that it was unwise to post anything before I had the matching reference citations attached. I will refrain from that in the future. And I've taken care to read much of the other guidance on Medical articles in Wikipedia, and will adjust my work accordingly.


 * I appreciate and respect earnest criticism about the quality of my work, as it pertains to meeting standards of WP:RS, and the new-to-me WP:MEDRS, and -- if given a day or two to re-evaluate EVERYTHING I've posted on both of these articles -- I will fix much of it (probably most) in line with the various shortcomings cited here, and others I've just discovered by reviewing endless mountains of WP protcols.


 * Note that, out of courtesy, and urgency, I have respectfully refrained from trashing most of the other content by prior editors -- instead, simply supplementing it with more relevant and authoritative content. As time and workload permit, I will address those shortcomings, and will start by announcing, on the Talk page, any intent to do major deletions (and some are clearly due). But I will not trash another's extensive, relevant and accurate work within an hour of their delivering it.


 * Lives are at stake: Valid information is most urgent. And I have been scrupulous in providing just that, and that alone (compared, apparently, to editors before me on this topic).


 * I welcome respectful and well-intentioned criticism on the Talk pages of any article I edit, and encourage that they be directed to me with a flag. I will take note.  If I don't respond within 24 hours, on a topic of this urgency and importance, fine. Trash my work.


 * But, for heaven's sake, let me catch a breath before you pull the rug out from under me. I don't have the time to do it over, as I'm currently also dealing with public service duties related to the current crisis. And, clearly, no one else has recently stepped up to the plate to adequately overhaul these important, timely, but previously very poorly produced, inadequate and absent articles.


 * Respectfully,
 * ~ Penlite (talk) 18:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * While the descriptions of the mechanical processes might not require WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing (although even that should be available and would be preferable), some statements in the Advantages and Disadvantages sections certainly need MEDRS-quality sourcing. The way to go on the mechanical descriptions is to find the best possible source (not Youtube) for writing those, while some parts of the Advantages/Disadvantages should not be added back unless you have MEDRS sources.    Penlite, my concern at this point is that you are not a new editor, there are past concerns on your talk page about your editing (expressed by  and ), and it is odd to find edits of this quality from a relatively experienced editor. The impression is given that you are experimenting in mainspace, rather than in user sandbox, and using mainspace to collect notes about research.  Specifically, why did you mention "(note detailed reader comment,, April 7, 2020, by Christopher Smith, with clinical application details.), a reader comment on a marginal source? Reminder to look at contribs at resuscitator (where you added a blog), artificial ventilation, mechanical ventilation and negative pressure ventilator.  And you've attached five citations to some statements, when there are old messages on your talk page about Citation overkill. Why do these descriptions require five citations?  I suggest looking instead for one or two highest quality sources.  Wikipedia must take care that we are not advancing commercial interests at a time when all of these types of machines are in demand; the Advantages/Disadvantages of each should be carefully sourced. Your user page mentions an impressive number of professions and contacts in numerous industries; do you have any conflict of interest in this area?   I suggest that it would be helpful for you to review what sources you want to use for what text here on talk before re-adding text, and then to take it slow to make sure you are adding text in the format expected from an experienced editor.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that very constructive advice, . I'm sure will take note as I've been talking to them on their talk page, where they tell me that they will do further drafting in their sandbox and ask the folks here to review it. Thanks to all who have contributed here, and let's hope that working together you'll be able to make valuable improvements. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Your critiques and advice are noted, and I will reflect carefully upon them. I am attempting, while managing other responsibilities, to make time to reconstruct the lost edits, and correct them to the standards that have been discussed here and elsewhere -- on my sandbox. When finished, I will report that, with a link to the sandbox, for all to review and assess (please, all, refrain from visiting the sandbox until then). Respectfully ~ Penlite (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Penlite. I am quite busy elsewhere, so am going to unwatch here for now.  Please ping me if/when my feedback is needed.  Regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * PS, Penlite, popping back in to give you some tips. The reason we shouldn't be using websites from individual hospitals or individual doctors is that they may be pushing the particular kind of machine they have over others (to recoup their costs and turn a profit).  Take for example, Prostate_cancer.  If a hospital does proton beam therapy and has the machine for that, their literature will push that.  If they are experts at robotic-assisted prostatectomy, they will push that.  If their equipment is geared to external beam radiation therapy, they'll push that. There is no one best therapy, and each hospital/doctor/treatment center will naturally have literature touting the machine or technique they have. That's why we need independent, third-party, peer-reviewed sources, per WP:MEDRS, even when talking about equipment.  This page may help you locate better sources:  Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * (to recoup their costs and turn a profit)...or to simply recoup their costs, or because they have an emotional investment in having made the decision they did, yep. A far larger problem, however, is that iron lungs have been “orphans” so long that there are neither many manufacturers nor medicos intimately familiar with them. The last polio epidemic left so many underutilized machines in its wake that there was little reason to follow up with new machinery, and there is always, in every field, an economic push to explore the new rather than the reinvestigate the old in developed countries which are not facing crisis. Qwirkle (talk) 00:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I've discovered, over the decades, that this is exactly the case in virtually all technologies. "Obsolescence" -- whether the result of inherent flaws, improved competing products, or changing economics (e.g.: economic cycles and evolutions, shifting ownership, "planned obsolescence," etc.) -- routinely results in "orphaned" technologies, regardless of inherent merit, whose technical and historic information soon becomes lost to history -- often, ironically, just about the time that circumstances change enough that it becomes relevant again. That has appeared to be the case here, based on news reports, and medical literature I found while following up about the topic.
 * I was trying to simply round up what little information remains, and new developments, and put it here, in Wikipedia language (admittedly imperfectly), and with thorough documentation (though I clearly jumped the gun by posting the Advantages/disadvantages lists before rounding up and attaching the ref cites for the material from which the lists were drawn. My bad. Will try to get this done shortly, in my sandbox. This edit-war distraction, though, has consumed all my available time to wiki-edit, and I've had to step back and attend to other matters.)
 * As someone else has noted, and I concur, there is also the question of cultural relevance in medical R&D: Rich countries -- able to afford the most modern technologies, and the advanced staff needed to utilize them -- have long had no use for the Iron lung and its kin, but poorer nations may still have such need, particularly if their meager "modern" resources are overwhelmed by a surge coming faster than they can purchase newer gear, and train staff.  They need to know what other options may exist (especially now), regardless of how little "relevance" they may have for those of us in the "developed" nations, or our medical journals, focused almost entirely on current medical practices in affluent nations.  Nigeria, Anglophone East Africa, South Africa, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Myanmar and Malaysia, for instance, are all English-language Wikipedia consumers, as well (and, combined, far outnumber the population of the "developed" Anglophone nations). This, then, also has relevance for the developed "donor" nations, as well, trying to decide how (or whether) to help those others. And the same is true for Wikipedia -- trying to become fully relevant across the Anglophone world.
 * As to the reference to hospitals, and their documentation, I think I understand the points (sometimes conflicting) that you're both trying to say, and a review of WP:MEDRS has helped me to be more reflective about that. In my ref cites to medical peer-reviewed journals, I had been in the habit of noting hospital affiliations partly because I thought it an important way to reveal any affiliation bias, not hide it.
 * However, in at least two cases (Boston Medical Center & Boston Children's Hospital), citing their material (historic/technical video and current ICU manual) provided mostly background information that summarized the technologies, without being (IMHO) particularly prescriptive or promotional (nor enthusiastic) -- and solidly consistent with the peer-reviewed materials, as well. Moreover (and perhaps I shouldn't think this) Boston-area hospitals (those noted, plus Johns Hopkins and Massachusetts General) have superlative reputation as the experts in medical technology implementation, largely because of their association with the world's pre-eminent medical college: Harvard Medical School.
 * In particular, it is Boston Children's Hospital where the "iron lung" came to first regular use, and their video provided exceptional graphic demonstrations of the iron lung that explained it simply and exceptionally clearly, from a rather dry historic and technical approach, I thought, without really being promotional (it is almost unthinkable that they would ever revive iron lung use there). That information, it seems to me, is ideal for effectively explaining the iron lung to the layperson, compared to the medical journals (with their obtuse jargon and near-total lack of clarifying imagery). That's why I made it the #2 reference citation. Should I have put it in "External links" instead?
 * ~ Penlite (talk) 06:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Seen in The Five Pennies
Is it worth mentioning that a patient in an iron lung is seen in the 1959 biopic The Five Pennies ? It's authentic, being contemporaneous with the polio epidemic of that time. BMJ-pdx (talk) 00:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Can we do better than the MS Paint diagram of how the machine works?
It's pretty obviously just MS Paint, default colors and all, are there no better diagrams or anyone who can make a better diagram to fit this? 96.66.39.9 (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC)