Who Woke Up On An Autopsy Table? Not the Denver Post...

[Jefferson]

Who Woke Up On An Autopsy Table? Not the Denver Post...

This is the show from Tuesday, January 16th, 2018

SUMMARY:

The Denver Post interviews Bob Enyart about Saturday's March for Abolition and why Colorado Right To Life changed the name of the event. So Bob invites you, urges you, to come out and join us at 10 a.m. across the street from Denver's Planned Parenthood abortion mill at 38th and Pontiac, just south of I-70 and Quebec. Bob also talks about the man declared dead by three doctors who began snoring on the autopsy table, and Finland's failed economic program of simply giving $16,000 a year to its citizens. And see www.kgov.com/brain-dead for the man who started snoring on an autopsy table and then woke up!

 

[gcthomas]

It would be a better story about coming back from brain death if two of the three doctors hadn't just signed off the death cert without looking at the man, and the third had actually made a brain death assessment instead of simply trying to measure what were unusually feeble vital signs.

But hey, don't let facts get in the way of a good tabloid story. :carryon:

 

[Stripe]

It would be a better story about coming back from brain death if two of the three doctors hadn't just signed off the death cert without looking at the man, and the third had actually made a brain death assessment instead of simply trying to measure what were unusually feeble vital signs.

But hey, don't let facts get in the way of a good tabloid story. :carryon:

Was he declared dead by three doctors or not?

 

[gcthomas]

Was he declared dead by three doctors or not?

Get a grip, Stripe. You are so keen to object, you forget to read what is written and so post something stupidly ignorant.

I didn't challenge the facts presented, I just said "It would have been a better story if …" the full facts were considered in order to prevent a misleading post.

 

[Stripe]

Get a grip, Stripe. You are so keen to object, you forget to read what is written and so post something stupidly ignorant. I didn't challenge the facts presented, I just said "It would have been a better story if …" the full facts were considered in order to prevent a misleading post.

The presentation was fine. The medical institution tends to err on the side of death.

 

[gcthomas]

The presentation was fine. The medical institution tends to err on the side of death.

Facts, Stripe, please. The page is about patients who have allegedly recovered from a diagnosis of brain death, but when you look into the actual reports of the individuals none of them were actually declared braindead at all - journalistic overreach is the only conclusion to draw in most cases there.

This one is no different. Brain death, at least in the UK, requires two EEGs 24 hours apart, as well as a battery of physical exams, and the categorisation is to differentiate it from other superficial similar states when a patient is on life support. What is described here is a man who was signed of as dead without a determination of brain death.

The take does fit well into the Kgov page though, as like all the others as is misrepresented as a brain death diagnosis when one was not made. But the Kgov site doesn't have a good reputation for fact checking if it thinks no one will notice.

 

[Stripe]

None of them were actually declared braindead at all.

You just got finished admitting that three doctors signed off on this guy as being dead. :idunno:

The medical scene has a death mindset.

 

[gcthomas]

You just got finished admitting that three doctors signed off on this guy as being dead. :idunno:

The medical scene has a death mindset.

A. I never challenged that sign-off fact, so you must only be focussing on that to avoid actually dealing with the issue of the dishonesty of the Kgiv page, silly troll.
B. You haven't given any evidence for the mindset. So that repeated assertion is just trolling.
C. None of the patients on that page were declared brain dead. None of them. So the title is specifically misleading to the point of dishonesty.
D. You are unwilling to actually engage, troll.

:troll: ← Stripe

 

[Stripe]

A. I never challenged that sign-off fact.

I know.

That's why I pointed it out. :duh:

Sort of puts paid to your assertion that nobody was declared brain dead. They were declared dead dead. :chuckle:

You haven't given any evidence for the mindset.

Three doctors signed off on a living guy as dead. Two of them did so without even looking at him.

None of the patients on that page were declared brain dead.

How about dead dead?

 

[gcthomas]

I know.

That's why I pointed it out. :duh:

Sort of puts paid to your assertion that nobody was declared brain dead. They were declared dead dead. :chuckle:

Three doctors signed off on a living guy as dead. Two of them did so without even looking at him.



How about dead dead?

I know you have trouble reading plain English, but do have a look at the page heading. It says the patients were brain dead but recovered. And it isn't true.

If you want to troll, feel free. But you aren't convincing anyone.

 

[Stripe]

I know you have trouble reading plain English, but do have a look at the page heading. It says the patients were brain dead but recovered. And it isn't true.

Sounds like you're demanding that every use "brain dead" in the strictly defined way you have demanded. That would be nice.

However, you seem to have an issue with the stories on www.KGOV.com/brain-dead, which rather than focusing on the strict definition has the goal of showing the death mindset of the medical world.

How about the first entry on KGOV? The doctors were going to switch off the life support of a patient you assert was not brain dead. That's OK with you?

 

[gcthomas]

[MENTION=4167]Stripe[/MENTION], why don't you answer my simple question first? You know, whether you're OK with the presentation of a whole load of sad cases misrepresented as brain dead patients who have recovered on a page of alleged brain dead people who have recovered when that just isn't true?

The case you mention doesn't have anyone declared dead in it. Why is that? Are you happy with the falsehood?

 

[Stripe]

[MENTION=4167]Stripe[/MENTION], why don't you answer my simple question first? You know, whether you're OK with the presentation of a whole load of sad cases misrepresented as brain dead patients who have recovered on a page of alleged brain dead people who have recovered when that just isn't true?

There's nothing wrong with the page. The terminology could be cleaned up, but the point remains. The medical profession is obsessed with death.

The case you mention doesn't have anyone declared dead in it.

And yet they were going to cause them to die.

Why is that?

They knew they were killing a living person.

Now that I've answered your question: The doctors were going to switch off the life support of a patient you assert was not brain dead. That's OK with you?

 

[gcthomas]

Switching off a life support machine, and allowing nature to take its course, is a more ethical approach than keeping someone with no hope of recovery bodily alive but with no consciousness.

How that point is judged is another issue, and especially it is not clear what the situation was in this case, as comments in the piece are conpletely contradictory (the Daily Mail is not a reliable record of the news - it is rather like the National Enquirer. Like ToL and Kgov, it likes to sensationalise to make a point). We don't have any information from the hospital, nor unedited comments from the family, so information is short.

So who knows, Strip? Certainly you and I don't know the situation. It could have been the right thing, or perhaps the wrong. We need a reliable record of what actually happened. In any case, I don't disagree with you that letting nature take its course might not have been the right thing, but remember that a lot of the comments that you implicitly support in ToL threads are keen to insist that 'letting nature take its course' isn't killing (see the many 'saving the fœtus by giving it a chance to live out of the mother at 10 weeks' type threads).

 

[Stripe]

Switching off a life support machine, and allowing nature to take its course, is a more ethical approach than keeping someone with no hope of recovery bodily alive but with no consciousness.

Well, she's recovering. So your platitudes are misplaced.

How that point is judged is another issue, and especially it is not clear what the situation was in this case, as comments in the piece are conpletely contradictory (the Daily Mail is not a reliable record of the news - it is rather like the National Enquirer. Like ToL and Kgov, it likes to sensationalise to make a point). We don't have any information from the hospital, nor unedited comments from the family, so information is short.

There are different reports from other sources.

Certainly you and I don't know the situation. It could have been the right thing, or perhaps the wrong. We need a reliable record of what actually happened. In any case, I don't disagree with you that letting nature take its course might not have been the right thing, but remember that a lot of the comments that you implicitly support in ToL threads are keen to insist that 'letting nature take its course' isn't killing (see the many 'saving the fœtus by giving it a chance to live out of the mother at 10 weeks' type threads).

:AMR:

You can't "give a baby a chance" at 10 weeks old.

The point of my question challenges your line of attack. You're criticizing KGOV regarding their use of "brain dead," but are ignoring the message.

 

[gcthomas]

[MENTION=4167]Stripe[/MENTION], the message appears to be that hospitals' use of brain death assessments to make judgements about withdrawal of life support is risky and wrong.

If that is the message, then the page is severely misrepresenting the stories. If that is not the message, then the page is incompetent.

 

[Stripe]

[MENTION=4167]Stripe[/MENTION], the message appears to be that hospitals' use of brain death assessments to make judgements about withdrawal of life support is risky and wrong. If that is the message, then the page is severely misrepresenting the stories. If that is not the message, then the page is incompetent.

The stories say the patient was adjudicated "brain dead."

How does the site misrepresent the stories?

How is the site incompetent if you can't understand its intentions?

 

[Stripe]

Meanwhile, you still didn't answer:

The doctors were going to switch off the life support of a patient you assert was not brain dead. That's OK with you?

 

[gcthomas]

The stories say the patient was adjudicated "brain dead."

How does the site misrepresent the stories??

As I have already said, 'brain dead' wasn't part of the story. Of course, if you are going to quote the Daily Mail on anything at all, you have to do some due diligence, since they openly and routinely make up details to make everything more sellable.

In short the Daily Mail's page does not represent the actual story very closely. It says the person was both "in a coma" and "brain dead". So which was it? It can't be both. Sort of ruins the credibility of the site, doesn't it?

Meanwhile, you still didn't answer:

The doctors were going to switch off the life support of a patient you assert was not brain dead. That's OK with you?

Given the Daily Mail article has fundamental contradictions in it, as I answered before, neither of us can be remotely sure of the actual situation. If you can find another source that can be trusted, then go ahead. But since most of the tall tales on the Kov page are from the Daily Mail or similar rags, then I suspect that you can't do even that.

 

[Stripe]

As I have already said, 'brain dead' wasn't part of the story. Of course, if you are going to quote the Daily Mail on anything at all, you have to do some due diligence, since they openly and routinely make up details to make everything more sellable.

The stories did say she was brain dead.

Sam Hemming suffered devastating head injuries when the car she was travelling in with her boyfriend flipped over on the M6 - leaving her brain dead and with 'no hope of recovery'.​

— source​

How did the site misrepresent them?

In short the Daily Mail's page does not represent the actual story very closely. It says the person was both "in a coma" and "brain dead". So which was it? It can't be both. Sort of ruins the credibility of the site, doesn't it?

So now it does say she was brain dead?

Given the Daily Mail article has fundamental contradictions in it, as I answered before, neither of us can be remotely sure of the actual situation. If you can find another source that can be trusted, then go ahead. But since most of the tall tales on the Kov page are from the Daily Mail or similar rags, then I suspect that you can't do even that.

:sigh:

Again, the question:

You assert that this girl was not brain dead, yet the doctors were going to switch off her life support. Are you OK with that?