Talk:Jahi McMath case/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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.