Talk:Jahi McMath case/Archive 2

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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). —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * M endaliv, 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. —/M endaliv /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)