(2018-01-28, 06:25 PM)leadville Wrote: [ -> ]I would deny no such thing.
It would seem like you are...
(2018-01-28, 06:25 PM)leadville Wrote: [ -> ]Clinically dead simply implies no signs of life are/were obvious or detectable.
That's not how it is defined. Wikipedia provides a decent overview:
(2018-01-28, 06:25 PM)Wikipedia on "clinical death Wrote: [ -> ]Clinical death is the medical term for cessation of blood circulation and breathing, the two necessary criteria to sustain human and many other organisms' lives. It occurs when the heart stops beating in a regular rhythm, a condition called cardiac arrest.
(2018-01-28, 06:25 PM)leadville Wrote: [ -> ]But if a clinically-dead individual subsequently makes a recovery then an eventual description of their earlier situation would more accurately be that she/he "had appeared to be dead".
Death is an irreversible condition - the individual does not come back to life. The life of that individual is over.
According to that quote I posted, the girl's body had been in the pool for at least
17 minutes! "Appeared dead"? I'm sorry, but you're definitely not more qualified than that doctor to claim what death is.
Her heart wasn't beating for 45 minutes, either. She was, for all intents and purposes, dead, dead, dead, clinically-defined or otherwise.
You're the one trying to define what death is and isn't. Death doesn't imply that it is irreversible. "Had appeared to be dead" ~ yeah right.
(2018-01-28, 06:17 PM)leadville Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not going to try to tell you anything at all. But none of what you've said changes what I wrote earlier. Death is the irreversible end of life in-the-body. If life doesn't end then the former condition wasn't death.
And please don't try to talk down to me about semantics - semantics is simply the meaning of words and phrases. You could use any word you chose to mean whatever YOU personally wanted it to mean but it's pretty pointless if others don't understand you.
My use of the word 'death' is very simple - death is the end of life in-the-body, an irreversible state. A state of ongoing life that wasn't detectable doesn't mean that death had taken place. The individual could simply have been very close to death - even for a long time. Minimal, undetectable signs of life as medicine determines them. Clinical death is the best current guide but it may not be infallible and the parameters could change in future as techniques improve.
We can go down the hypothetical road of cryogenic preservation of the body if you wish but if the individual is dead before preservation you'll end up with a deep-frozen corpse that can't be brought back to life. Now if the individual is frozen slightly BEFORE death then who knows?
Maybe the technique of restoring to life the same, preserved-but-still-living individual will one day be perfected. At this point nobody can justifiably be certain.
Leadville said >
Death is the irreversible end of life in-the-body. If life doesn't end then the former condition wasn't death.
That's the semantics I'm referring to. It's impossible to know if every single person that has actually died from a cardiac arrest and not come back, couldn't have been brought back if some machine had been available to assist. Therefore it stands to reason that there is no absolute point of death providing the body hasn't been destroyed.
Leadville said >
Clinical death is the best current guide but it may not be infallible and the parameters could change in future as techniques improve.
The definition of clinical death is met by the stoppage of the heart. Van Lommel's patients were all clinically dead. That's the point.
Leadville said >
A state of on going life that wasn't detectable doesn't mean that death had taken place.
Are you referring to patients in cardiac arrest ? There is
no detectable life after 10-20 seconds (30 max) that's the whole point of the matter. You aren't making any sense.
(2018-01-28, 09:14 PM)leadville Wrote: [ -> ]Right back atcher
You mean I'm not making any sense (in your opinion) either ?
(2018-01-28, 09:44 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]You mean I'm not making any sense (in your opinion) either ?
Let's just say we see matters somewhat differently.
"It's impossible to know if every single person that has actually died from a cardiac arrest and not come back, couldn't have been brought back if some machine had been available to assist. Therefore it stands to reason that there is no absolute point of death providing the body hasn't been destroyed."
Of course there's no knowing if medical intervention might have prevented a death had it been available. But when cardiac arrest has resulted in the death of an individual then it's final - that's death. Anything not terminal might be termed as "near to death" or whatever form of words you prefer.
Death is simply the outcome of an event the individual didn't survive.
(2018-01-28, 07:19 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]Leadville said > Death is the irreversible end of life in-the-body. If life doesn't end then the former condition wasn't death.
That's the semantics I'm referring to. It's impossible to know if every single person that has actually died from a cardiac arrest and not come back, couldn't have been brought back if some machine had been available to assist. Therefore it stands to reason that there is no absolute point of death providing the body hasn't been destroyed.
Leadville said > Clinical death is the best current guide but it may not be infallible and the parameters could change in future as techniques improve.
The definition of clinical death is met by the stoppage of the heart. Van Lommel's patients were all clinically dead. That's the point.
Leadville said >A state of on going life that wasn't detectable doesn't mean that death had taken place.
Are you referring to patients in cardiac arrest ? There is no detectable life after 10-20 seconds (30 max) that's the whole point of the matter. You aren't making any sense.
Isn't 'clinical death' defined also by there being no discernible activity in the brain stem?
I'm not trying to put any limits on detectable life signs. In extremely cold environments a body may also be cold and appear without life but that's not the same as it being dead. Restoration of function may come about when gradual warming is brought about but that's not bringing someone back from the dead.
(2018-01-28, 06:57 PM)Valmar Wrote: [ -> ]It would seem like you are...
That's not how it is defined. Wikipedia provides a decent overview:
According to that quote I posted, the girl's body had been in the pool for at least 17 minutes! "Appeared dead"? I'm sorry, but you're definitely not more qualified than that doctor to claim what death is. Her heart wasn't beating for 45 minutes, either. She was, for all intents and purposes, dead, dead, dead, clinically-defined or otherwise.
You're the one trying to define what death is and isn't. Death doesn't imply that it is irreversible. "Had appeared to be dead" ~ yeah right.
Isn't it YOU who's trying to say that death has occurred based on observations made? Doctors use their judgement but aren't infallible. I don't question anyone's abilities, though, or doubt the accuracy of the their observations. Only the conclusions drawn.
What I'm saying is that death is irreversible but not I'M not trying to define anything. I leave definitions to scholars. If an individual shows all the signs of being dead but live on then they may indeed have been 'close to death' or 'near death' if you wish.
When they are revived it's because they weren't dead.
(2018-01-28, 10:12 PM)leadville Wrote: [ -> ]"It's impossible to know if every single person that has actually died from a cardiac arrest and not come back, couldn't have been brought back if some machine had been available to assist. Therefore it stands to reason that there is no absolute point of death providing the body hasn't been destroyed."
Of course there's no knowing if medical intervention might have prevented a death had it been available. But when cardiac arrest has resulted in the death of an individual then it's final - that's death. Anything not terminal might be termed as "near to death" or whatever form of words you prefer.
Death is simply the outcome of an event the individual didn't survive.
Leadville, cardiac arrest is the only way a person can die, that is that their heart has stopped beating for whatever reason, other than being instantly vaporised (by a bomb)
I've bolded the line above because I'm afraid you've completely lost me. Cardiac arrest
is the death of an individual (the first stage) but it can be reversed nowadays if resuscitation is successful. Prior to the early 1960's, everyone who had a cardiac arrest.. died permanently.
I think I'll leave it there before the green van comes for me, thanks for the debate.
I hesitate to muddy the waters and apologies if I have missed the point but, if i understand it correctly it does seem to me an argument of semantics. That is, the meaning and application of the language used. Personally I think it's a pointless argument and it's at cross-purposes.
Leadville seems to be taking the position that if a person can be revived, then they were not dead. Whilst I can understand that, and of course if one cannot be resuscitated then one would definitely be dead, it appears to me that the only way one could be certain a person was dead if we adopt that perspective, is if decomposition has set in.
Apologies if the following is a bit of a ramble...
What do doctors mean when they say a person is dead? I wouldn't have thought decomposition was one of the criteria that is usually used to declare a person clinically dead. Certification of death doesn't, as far as I know, include the words "probably dead". So when a clinician declares a person dead, legally that's the position.
It may be that a doctor makes a mistake or the signs of life are so weak as to be undetectable, then the patient may spontaneously wake up in the morgue or if they're really unlucky, in a coffin underground or at at the crematorium. I'd think that was vanishingly rare in the western world.
Why does a doctor declare someone dead? I may be wrong here but in my limited experience death is declared when the heart stops for most people and they are deemed to be beyond recovery for some reason. The key point for me is that the declaration is made when the heart stops (if there is to be no resuscitation attempt). At that point resuscitation attempts cease but the physical processes continue for some time I would think (not sure how long before decomposition would start but I would imagine that depends on the condition of the body and the environment).
I don't think when a doctor declares a person 'dead' it means all their biological functions have ceased. In fact that is, I suspect, rarely the case. I think the doctor is saying 'this person is dead and is to be allowed to complete the process'. Their cells are alive, there is oxygenation for a period at least. I would guess some people even hear the doctor pronouncing their own death as apparently the sense of hearing is one of the last to cease. So death is, as mentioned by a previous poster, a process. I guess it starts when the key mechanisms for supporting life - breathing and heart activity end, and ends when we decompose or the body is destroyed.
Do doctors really bring people back from the dead or is it that they resuscitate them from a stage in a process that, if left uninterrupted, would result in final death? It occurs to me that 'dying' is the process preceding the process called death. When a person is certified as 'dead' the medical staff don't say 'he/she is dying', that happened earlier. They say they are 'dead'. So when we describe a person as dead are we referring to the final station on the journey to death, or are we saying they are now in the process called death? I think possibly people use both.
One often reads of people 'dying on the operating table' and then being revived. Whether they were actually dead (clearly not if we apply Leadville's criterion), or had simply entered the process of death, is I think, a point of semantics. I don't think arguing about it helps us all.
For me, the key is not the language used, but what is meant by it. When people survive an NDE and report it, I don't think anyone is claiming it's as a result of some sort of miracle or that the medical staff resurrected them.
Where there is veridical evidence, from a person who could not have possibly obtained the information by normal means given their confirmed medical state, as far as I can see it is irrelevant as to whether there was x millijoules of electrical activity (or whatever they measure it with) in their cortex.
Where the experiences don't contain veridical information, I think one is at liberty to accept or not to accept the testimony. What I think is wrong is to discount it because that means taking up a definite position about the experience which, frankly, no one is in a position to do.
Hope this makes sense.