• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you believe brain death is death?

Do you accept a patient pronounced "brain dead" as dead (legally and otherwise)


  • Total voters
    62
  • Poll closed .
Pray tell what relevance does your citation have to anything, let alone to my post that you quoted?

I wanted you to clearly see WHY Y2L claims are very valid. Ms. Munoz was medially and legally dead.
 
Y2L made the poll because it is relevant to Ms. Munoz's death. You made the claim "entire brain"...which isn't how Texas determines DEATH, but more specifically BRAIN DEAD.

But nothing in my post dealt with the issue. Being that my post was meant to correct someone's incorrect view of brain death.

Which, again, you laughingly took as an argument against removing Munoz from mechanical support.

LEVELS of dead are only relevant to State Statutes

No ****, Sherlock. But my post had nothing to do with the state statutes. It dealt with the definition of a "MEDICAL TERM". But like I said, you obviously didn't understand what you were reading and simply reacted out of ignorance, as is very common for you

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.

Which makes sense when one realizes that I wasn't speaking to any specific legal statute, but the standard medical definition

medical definition=/=complexities of the legal code defining death

You made the claim "entire brain"...which isn't how Texas determines DEATH, but more specifically BRAIN DEAD.

well, at that point, an intelligent person might realize that a legal and medical definition *are not* the same thing ...


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.

which clearly has nothing to do with a general post about brain death (note, my post, and the one I am replying to, have nothing to do with Munoz or texas. In fact, neither are mentioned).

Amazing that all this fuss can come about because you lack the ability and discipline to read and understand what you are replying to
 
I wanted you to clearly see WHY Y2L claims are very valid. Ms. Munoz was medially and legally dead.

Yes. And so what? The kid should still receive care.
 
YET. Hence the life support. Duh?
I'm not even sure doctors fully understand the relationship between mother and fetus.

I think it very likely that if you kept a brain-dead pregnant woman alive just to give her baby a chance at survival, it would turn out badly or even worse.

Not to mention it's ****ing grotesque.

Besides, there's that whole bit with organs starting to shut down if the brain is dead, despite life support - don't tell me that wouldn't effect the fetus....
 
I'm not even sure doctors fully understand the relationship between mother and fetus.

I think it very likely that if you kept a brain-dead pregnant woman alive just to give her baby a chance at survival, it would turn out badly or even worse.

Not to mention it's ****ing grotesque.

Besides, there's that whole bit with organs starting to shut down if the brain is dead, despite life support - don't tell me that wouldn't effect the fetus....

actually, though rare, there has been research in the area, which i posted earlier.
 
actually, though rare, there has been research in the area, which i posted earlier.

Not to mention those healthy twins born in Michigan in 2012, their mom brain dead on a vent for a month.

Oh did I say twins, I mean grotesque macabre freaks and their family was awful and disgusting for wanting to provide for them... or something. :roll:
 
Oklahoma City, Okla., Mar 27, 2008 / 05:58 am (CNA).- A young man who was injured in an all-terrain-vehicle accident woke from his coma and showed signs of life just minutes before he was to be disconnected from life support, Dateline NBC reports.

Zack Dunlap suffered a broken collarbone, multiple skull fractures, and “absolutely catastrophic” brain injuries when his four-wheeled off-road vehicle flipped over.

After tests revealed no blood flow to Dunlap’s brain, doctors determined he met the legal and medical requirements for declaring someone brain-dead.

Dunlap’s family decided to remove him from life support, and a medical team prepared to harvest Dunlap’s organs for donation. Oklahoma authorities were informed of his death, while friends and family were told to gather at the hospital to say their goodbyes.

Man makes "miraculous" recovery from brain death after accident :: Catholic News Agency (CNA)
 
Not to mention those healthy twins born in Michigan in 2012, their mom brain dead on a vent for a month.

Oh did I say twins, I mean grotesque macabre freaks and their family was awful and disgusting for wanting to provide for them... or something. :roll:
That's different than this situation, due to the stage of pregnancy, I would think.

It just seems grotesque to keep a dead person's body alive on the off chance that the partially developed fetus inside will develop fully...

Not sure where you got all that drill in your last statement.
 
That's different than this situation, due to the stage of pregnancy, I would think.

It just seems grotesque to keep a dead person's body alive on the off chance that the partially developed fetus inside will develop fully...

Well yeah, the outcome's going to be different every time based on why and when the brain injury occurred and how this affected the flow of oxygen and nutrients to the kid.

This is not that irregular was my point. I don't understand why you find offering life support to a living patient to be grotesque. If the kid can live despite his mom's injury then why not save the patient you can save?
 
Well yeah, the outcome's going to be different every time based on why and when the brain injury occurred and how this affected the flow of oxygen and nutrients to the kid.

This is not that irregular was my point. I don't understand why you find offering life support to a living patient to be grotesque. If the kid can live despite his mom's injury then why not save the patient you can save?
As I understood things, the mother was dead (the brain dead part), and the fetus's chance of survival was low - I'm not sure what other issues might show up due to a fetus developing inside a brain-dead body.
 
misdiagnoses happens. Not sure it serves as an argument against brain death being a reasonable basis for medical and legal death

I read a little about the guy in the article. The doctors pronounced him dead, a surgical team was there ready to harvest organs and he heard everything they were saying. Then he woke up.

Count me in the "I don't know" column.
 
As I understood things, the mother was dead (the brain dead part), and the fetus's chance of survival was low - I'm not sure what other issues might show up due to a fetus developing inside a brain-dead body.

It doesn't happen enough to make a statistical model with any certainty about the chances of survival. Yes, in both the Michigan case and this Texas case the mom was brain dead. In both cases, the mom was on life support for over a month despite being legitimately and accurately declared brain dead.

In the Michigan case, the twins were both born healthy, the mom's organs were then donated in accordance with the mom's organ donor card (I mention this because people have been stating odd misinformation about brain death with short term life support causing other organ donation to be impossible).

In the Texas case, it's now irrelevant because we will have no data, the life support has ended and Mrs. Munoz's kid will now suffocate and die, probably already has. All we know is that at the current gestational age the kid could not be born and live. In only a week or two that might not have been the case. The fact that this was not appealed for the kid's sake to delay and allow for a c-section is obscenity. But that's for another thread.
 
Last edited:
It doesn't happen enough to make a statistical model with any certainty about the chances of survival. Yes, in both the Michigan case and this Texas case the mom was brain dead. In both cases, the mom was on life support for over a month despite being legitimately and accurately declared brain dead.

In the Michigan case, the twins were both born healthy, the mom's organs were then donated...

In the Texas case, it's now irrelevant because we will have no data, the life support has ended and Mrs. Munoz's kid will now suffocate and die, probably already has. All we know is that at the current gestational age the kid could not be born and live. In only a week or two that might not have been the case. The fact that this was not appealed for the kid's sake to delay and allow for a c-section is obscenity. But that's for another thread.
I suppose it's all in the way you look at it.
 
If a patient cannot survive without permanent mechanical assistance, then I'd say (in my absolute lack of medical expertise) they were probably dead.

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.

We were told that if he recovered, he would be blind, unable to walk or talk, or to help himself in any way. His brain damage was too extensive from having his skull crushed into the pavement by a huge 36 inch round limb that broke off a tree and flew like a javelin from a tree he was helping a neighbor cut down... a truly freak accident. The decision was made to pull the plug, since he was an multi-tropheyed athlete well known in this area for being one of the most talented baseball players ever to play the game here, and we felt he would never forgive us for not allowing him to go. They kept him on life support for a few days until the family could get here from Texas. This was a few years ago, just days from his 46th birthday, and he died within minutes of having life support removed. He was my son, and left behind a wife and a young daughter he adored, in addition to me and the rest of the family. :boohoo:

Greetings, EdwinWillers. :2wave:
 
We were told that if he recovered, he would be blind, unable to walk or talk, or to help himself in any way. His brain damage was too extensive from having his skull crushed into the pavement by a huge 36 inch round limb that broke off a tree and flew like a javelin from a tree he was helping a neighbor cut down... a truly freak accident. The decision was made to pull the plug, since he was an multi-tropheyed athlete well known in this area for being one of the most talented baseball players ever to play the game here, and we felt he would never forgive us for not allowing him to go. They kept him on life support for a few days until the family could get here from Texas. This was a few years ago, just days from his 46th birthday, and he died within minutes of having life support removed. He was my son, and left behind a wife and a young daughter he adored, in addition to me and the rest of the family. :boohoo:

Greetings, EdwinWillers. :2wave:

Our family had to make that call a couple of months ago to have a family member removed from total life support. It's a very hard thing to do. So sorry for your loss.
 
We were told that if he recovered, he would be blind, unable to walk or talk, or to help himself in any way. His brain damage was too extensive from having his skull crushed into the pavement by a huge 36 inch round limb that broke off a tree and flew like a javelin from a tree he was helping a neighbor cut down... a truly freak accident. The decision was made to pull the plug, since he was an multi-tropheyed athlete well known in this area for being one of the most talented baseball players ever to play the game here, and we felt he would never forgive us for not allowing him to go. They kept him on life support for a few days until the family could get here from Texas. This was a few years ago, just days from his 46th birthday, and he died within minutes of having life support removed. He was my son, and left behind a wife and a young daughter he adored, in addition to me and the rest of the family. :boohoo:

Greetings, EdwinWillers. :2wave:

Our family had to make that call a couple of months ago to have a family member removed from total life support. It's a very hard thing to do. So sorry for your loss.

I'm so sorry....

Hugs to both of you. *Hugs*
 
Our family had to make that call a couple of months ago to have a family member removed from total life support. It's a very hard thing to do. So sorry for your loss.
That's one of the main issues as I understand it - a brain-dead person on life support appears to just be sleeping...
 
If a patient cannot survive without permanent mechanical assistance, then I'd say (in my absolute lack of medical expertise) they were probably dead.

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.

Actually it is a lot more complex. There are many people who physiologically lack the ability to breath, but are not brain dead. A very high c-spine injury comes to mind. That person can have all their thoughts, memories, and desires left 100% intact. mechanical assistance saves that patient.

An AED is pure electric activity. If the patient has no mechanical ability left in the heart an AED will not help.

CPR is pure mechanical activity and a bridge to return to life if the body is up for the challenge.

Marlise Munoz had the resuscitative measures and her heart restarted, but her brain did not. She had the bridges to return to life applied, and they failed. She died by neurologic insult. There will be no braindead person that was diagnosed by current guidelines that will wake up and disagree.

Sorry for the scattered thoughts.
 
when you can no longer wipe your own ass, you are dead to society
 
when you can no longer wipe your own ass, you are dead to society
Actually, I believe it would be more accurate to say "when you can no longer THINK about wiping your own ass, you are dead".
 
Our family had to make that call a couple of months ago to have a family member removed from total life support. It's a very hard thing to do. So sorry for your loss.

:thanks:
 
Back
Top Bottom