How you can construe that to have anything to do with Marlise Munoz case is beyond me, but it clearly shows that you react without even understanding what you are replying to
lol, and what does that have to do with the post you quoted and your attempt to correct it? Like i said, as usual you don't even know what you're talking about and trumping around and trying to exercise some pathetic personal hang-up
The original post was:<<<No - because there are different levels of being 'brain dead' - and being in the state where medical assistance is necessary in order to keep the body functioning is only one *type*>>>
My reply was: <<<lol, what?
"By definition, "brain death" is "when the entire brain, including the brain stem, has irreversibly lost all function." The legal time of death is "that time when a physician(s) has determined that the brain and the brain stem have irreversibly lost all neurological function.">>>
Now can you explain how me citing a definition that clarifies that there are not "different levels of being 'brain dead'" has anything to do with the statute you cited, let alone lending itself to the idea I was speaking against the idea of removing Munoz from life support?
Right, it doesn't.
Having said that, someone who's been revived with an AED or with CPR, who wouldn't have been revived otherwise, would probably disagree.
Question is, is there a chance mechanical assistance can revive the patient? I don't have such knowledge. But it seems to me if there is no sign of brain activity, there is a high probability the patient will never recover either on their own or with the help of mechanical assistance. Tough call.
Who chimes "No Absolutes!" chimes absolutely.
Y2L made the poll because it is relevant to Ms. Munoz's death.
LEVELS of dead are only relevant to State Statutes...and the medical providers in a given state who must comply with such laws.
You gave a "HOW STUFF WORKS" explanation, which is fun to read, but it wasn't defining all of the various state laws as how each defines them.
You made the claim "entire brain"...which isn't how Texas determines DEATH, but more specifically BRAIN DEAD.
The hospital used a Statute in the Advance Directive Act...that WAS MISAPPLIED. And they tried to circumvent Roe v. Wade....and even Texas law about abortion. The hospital claimed that they were bound by law to keep a 14 week old fetus alive until viability. There is NO SUCH STATUE. Then they used the very misapplied statute in the Advanced Directive Act...which did work for them either.
Again, the fetus in Ms. Munoz was 14 weeks...NOT VIABLE and she was DEAD...legally and medically dead according to the laws of Texas.
With Schiavo she was still functioning at an unconscious level. Hence here involuntary motor responses to things like loud sounds, and only her higher brain functions were limited (what many people see as the make-up of an individual). In brain death you don't even have that
Anything else, Jay?TITLE 8. DEATH AND DISPOSITION OF THE BODY
SUBTITLE A. DEATH CHAPTER 671.
DETERMINATION OF DEATH AND AUTOPSY REPORTS SUBCHAPTER A.
DETERMINATION OF DEATH § 671.001.
Standard Used in Determining Death (a) A person is dead when, according to ordinary standards of medical practice, there is irreversible cessation of the person's spontaneous respiratory and circulatory functions. (b) If artificial means of support preclude a determination that a person's spontaneous respiratory and circulatory functions have ceased, the person is dead when, in the announced opinion of a physician, according to ordinary standards of medical practice, there is irreversible cessation of all spontaneous brain function. Death occurs when the relevant functions cease. (c) Death must be pronounced before artificial means of supporting a person's respiratory and circulatory functions are terminated. (d) A registered nurse or physician assistant may determine and pronounce a person dead in situations other than those described by Subsection (b) if permitted by written policies of a licensed health care facility, institution, or entity providing services to that person. Those policies must include physician assistants who are credentialed or otherwise permitted to practice at the facility, institution, or entity. If the facility, institution, or entity has an organized nursing staff and an organized medical staff or medical consultant, the nursing staff and medical staff or consultant shall jointly develop and approve those policies. The board shall adopt rules to govern policies for facilities, institutions, or entities that do not have organized nursing staffs and organized medical staffs or medical consultants. Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 678, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1989. Amended by Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 201, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1991. Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 965, § 8, eff. June 16, 1995.
§ 671.002. Limitation of Liability (a) A physician who determines death in accordance with Section 671.001(b) or a registered nurse or physician assistant who determines death in accordance with Section 671.001(d) is not liable for civil damages or subject to criminal prosecution for the physician's, registered nurse's, or physician assistant's actions or the actions of others based on the determination of death. (b) A person who acts in good faith in reliance on a physician's, registered nurse's, or physician assistant's determination of death is not liable for civil damages or subject to criminal prosecution for the person's actions. Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 678, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1989. Amended by Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 201, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1991. Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 965, § 9, eff. June 16, 1995.
State of Texas