Talk:Lazarus syndrome/Archive 1

August 2009
The link in reference #4 is no longer valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daedalusmc (talk • contribs) 04:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

note
"Its occurrence has been noted in medical literature at least 25 times since 1982."

The reference for this claim is not appropriate. It is an unsupported claim made by a hospital administrator in response to a lawsuit where a patient apparently spontaneously revived in the morgue. Note also that the comment is made in a news article that has no byline, and appears to be itself a syndicated quotation from another source. Suggest the entire sentence be removed from the article, unless a better cite is found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmoulding (talk • contribs) 20:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Reference dispute
" patient was verbally declared "

What the hell does "verbally declared" mean? Get some genuine references! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.237.39 (talk) 02:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The reference is there. I cannot see how simple use of English is unclear. Verbally declared means there was a declaration, and it was verbally made, that someone is dead. This is a factual report of the situation as it existed at the nearly dead persons bedside. Someone who is unfamiliar with the human condition might not realize that "declaring someone dead" means that all hope of helping them has passed, and efforts to help them live are unecessary and possibly harmful. Until someone makes that declaration, then there is a moral obligation upon all those present to make efforts to save that person. This verbal declaration is necessary when there is an attended death, and is a huge moment that ends both the resuscitation efforts, and a human life. Someone neeeds to stop the resuscitation. Otherwise it will go on forever. After the verbal declaration will be the paperwork by the proper authorities that make the "legal declaration". Why this would be questioned, and especially with the inappropriate word "hell" attached, is beyond me. Yikes. --Marcwiki9 (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I suppose the use of the word "hell" might be considered a bit tongue-in-cheek (although this humor might itself be considered inappropriate). But I agree with Marcwiki9 - it does seem at least a bit inappropriate - implying anger where none (should) be needed or expected. Perhaps such exclamatory use of the word hell might be a new (?) dialectical (?) variant of the English language? Jimw338 (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)