Jump to content

mr_keybay

Senior Members
  • Posts

    47
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

150 profile views

mr_keybay's Achievements

Quark

Quark (2/13)

-5

Reputation

  1. I can cite the Peterkin's post if you want, in which he referred explicitly how the death and which parameters are relevant in order to determine it like such. I simply mentioned the fact that even if a brain does not produce any electrical signal for a very short timed period, it can be considerable as "dead" (obviously not as definitive) -therefore I don't see how you connect it to stating some medical incompetence. Of course there are incompetent doctors: do you know the principle of statistics? The more people are actually doctors - the more probability increases to have incompetent practitioners? I think that's logical enough. According to my assumptions, nowadays the number of medical practitioners is relatively higher than how it was during the history.
  2. " Is the brain dead person really dead? - Issues in defining biological death - certain pitfalls merit consideration while evaluating for brainstem death confirmation:[8][9] The inexperience of the performing physician Potential confounders - such as hypothermia, drugs, alcohol Inadequate consideration during apnea test- such as low pCO2, ventilator trigger settings False Positive Brain Death Determination in scenarios such as barbiturate coma, baclofen toxicity False Negative Brain Death Determination- spinal reflexes and automatisms, ventilator auto-triggering during the apnea test Brain Death in Children- From 37 weeks of gestational age to 30 days, two examinations 24 hours apart whereas in 30 days to 18 years child, two examinations 12 hours apart Limitations of Ancillary Tests- artifacts in EEG Concerns relating to families and potential Organ donation such as personal and religious beliefs Failure to Maintain adequate environment for Organ donation -Systolic blood pressure of 100 mm Hg, urine output of at least 0.5 ml/kg/h; normal serum electrolytes and a tidal volume, not more than 8 ml/kg" As you can see, it is well-known that the incompetence of the medical practitioners may be a reason of premature deaths, exactly how I indicated as a possible factor of resuscitation on certain cases in my thesis, clearly you haven't read it. However, the fact that observation is done for a limited-defined-time because of an established literature information does not provide any scientifical reason to make it universal. Regarding your first citation, isn't it obvious that brain death from cortex actually is what constitutes death - therefore what I have been remarking till now? Like I said, even if the brain ceases the activities for a single instant it is considerable as "dead", but further observation is required in order to establish a definitive death (which are referred, as you stated, by literature). You might say that occasional medical incompetence isn't related to a mechanical functioning, I might agree on this, but "occasional" medical incompetence can never be shown whether a patient will produce life-evident-signs out of the temporal boundary limit.
  3. That is the point; I guess that it should be not up to me, nor you, nor literature, nor anyone to define the appropriate times for a definitive announcement of death. It should be a unique scientifical definition. It isn't. I thought I made it clear, I apologize in case I wasn't able to do so. This is why the topic's title is written as an experiment, not a conclusion, not a "law", not a rule. It's an experiment based from certain assumptions, which I explained thousands of times till now; experiments are done for researching purposes, they do not contain any actual conclusion inside before they are performed. You have been asked to supply a dispute for my last statements, not repeating your previous statements which were clearly referred to other kind of claims.
  4. Yet, everything you mentioned is completely off topic and most of your posts are tendentious, without any interest in discussing the topic even. I have been asking for that question and I haven't seen an actual response except the "science-sticks-to-facts", "you-are-no-proving-anything", "you-have-no-evidence-to-pull-interest". Feel free to post your disputes.
  5. All the more reason, the fact that there is a variable definition of observation time from country to country (and the subsequent procedures with observed informations) and, as you said, the lack of oxygen implies an immediate degradation of the brain structures - what kind of sense would it make for politics to entrust the management of the dead to ideologies rather than science when science has all the necessary details about the "end" of that individual, especially in modern cultures where the greatest credit is given to science in the first place? (eg. without a unique identifying solution such as the lost of circulation system - which naturally implies that the brain would lose the main "tool" not to go into a degradation state? Isn't that a good reason for politics to consider the stop of cardiopulmonary system as the main factor to determine death, but strangely there are still differences of the chosen methods?) Please supply your dispute regarding my previous claims. What is your dispute for my claims?
  6. A political type of handling to the death is completely different to what science may define for that matter. The fact that nowadays the politics do look for any ideological reason to handle such a phenomenon it makes me think, especially when science, as you all claimed by now, has a "proper" method of determining death. It sounds weird, pretty much weird. Reasons may be two: either the societies do not put the full trust to the science, the dominant science (which is quite unlikely to be the case for the modern societies) - so establishing specific rules on the handling of death (not based from science implications but ideologies), either the science knowledge about that kind of phenomenon isn't full enough to provide management methods to the actual societies (eg. not capable to prove that nobody can actually restore life activities after an indefinite period) naturally not considering the decomposition factor yet - although, for conventional reasons everyone must be buried, despite the assumptions someone might do, also as PeterKin specified in one of his first replies to this thread. The point is that none of the indicated reasons explicitly implies that no one can ever restore the life activities, especially if we stand for the first described reason. Can you dispute my claim? Yes or no?
  7. I would not only say "how we view", I would rather add "how we handle" it as well.
  8. Of course, given that is obvious fact - then why the society "rules" would differ each other, each Nation to something that's supposed to be scientific - such as death; a scientific truth - when (or if) the science, as you addressed, has a solid definition regarding what constitutes death? This is my question. By this question, it gives me the "indirect proof" that science cannot provide further details to give a provide a clear explanation to what constitutes "death", the "end" or, admitting it actually can, it gets to very ambiguous conclusions. Every your sentence contradicts your previous ones, that makes me think.
  9. Of course, given that is obvious fact - then why the society "rules" would differ each other, each Nation to something that's supposed to be scientific - such as death; a scientific truth - when (or if) the science, as you addressed, has a solid definition regarding what constitutes death? This is my question. By this question, it gives me the "indirect proof" that science cannot provide further details to give a provide a clear explanation to what constitutes "death", the "end" or, admitting it actually can, it gets to very ambiguous conclusions. Despite I think I have asked the same question to you for thousands times, remarked as the core of the thesis inside thread in question, everyone seemed to ignore it. I would even go further; in some reports, people revealed not only a different kind of reality during the particular cognitive experience, but verifiable events occurred in the current reality, targeted as "OBE", that later have been proven by the other subjects who participated the specific described events. Whatever you don't agree to the various citations of mine, defining them "anecdotes", I can't do nothing, but many researchers know that this is not the case. It's pretty obvious that you cannot reproduce any of the reported perceptions with a flat EEG, how do you expect to do so? Therefore, that doesn't automatically mean the facts do not exist, that people are lying, that I am lying, that you must have no interest for.
  10. So you go out to the conclusion that this is not a scientific occur or evidence for that matter? Also, given what you are addressing, how the "NDE" term would stand from if there would be no a particular clinical state defining such unexpected perceptions, cognitive experiences? The fact that "NDE" would heppen while active electrical brain activity is going to falsify the particularity of phenomenon, isn't it obvious? If the cognitive experience heppens during an active electrical activity I don't see how it could be even considered as particular cognitive experience, as in that case it's pretty clear the against-proof which resides on the observable EEG from the brain; in fact, it could be nicely associated from this physical reason. Yet, apparently, you cannot properly define what you actually mean from the term of death. Let's make it clear: Nothing we can discuss that the death can be considered whenever the brain stops emitting the usual signals, no matter the time, no matter the time and no matter the "space". You stated that for several times as well, please don't lie to yourself. Even if the brain does not produce any actual signal for a single instant, it is dead or, at least, considerable as scientifically "brain death". Since now, although, it has to follow an accurate definitive announcement as "death", which solely consists in the time-lapse since the cessation of activities that are entirely established by laws. Nothing more. The only difference between those two facts is this: one of the cases explained above is dead (but restores its activity because the absence was very short), the second one shows that definitive announcement of death can be made after the brain does not restore its faculties inside the established time limit. Who establishes such temporal limit? Certainly not the science as it has no actual proof whenever a brain can be considered as dead and whenever not, it's then up to the laws (based upon ethics, literature, politics) to decide when it's time to plug off the life. What do you dispute me regarding the above claims?
  11. Here's a citation for you: "The experience is presented as inherent to an electroencephalograph showing no brain activity. Normally, when we speak of a flat EEG, we are referring to clinical death or brain death, which is irreversible" http://www.perfettaletizia.it/archivio/infomazione/premorte/english.html Additionally it's subsequently specified that further analyses are necessary in order to confirm the final-legal-announcement as "dead" - which most all are somehow connected to the internal brain activity because that's of main relevance - during the next hours since the lost of its activity; neither the time and the monitored parameters (informations) of such surveillance are chosen by the science, but from a country's laws: you can have some Nation giving certain maximal time for observation, you can have another Nation giving another maximal time / parameter of observation since the main brain activity lost. If there will be no occur, the clinical state can be considered as "irrevesible" - therefore dead. Please, explain to me now: how can you acknowledge "death" from such assumptions even? Here was my simple implication; the fact we take my previous statement as real, we can not deny that there may be chances for some to get into a reversible state after the defined time, by logic - in terms of science.
  12. I am not sure if you are kidding, once again, but here's the specified NDE documentation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-death_experience "A near-death experience (NDE) is a profound personal experience associated with death or impending death which researchers claim share similar characteristics. When positive, such experiences may encompass a variety of sensations including detachment from the body, feelings of levitation, total serenity, security, warmth, the experience of absolute dissolution, and the presence of a light. When negative, such experiences may include sensations of anguish and distress."
  13. Let me explain why you are definitely wrong. If by "death" you (we) mean the interruption of any internal observable brain activity (the NDEs phenomena exactly shows such events during such clinical state) - then we can state that they are actually dead, also to all your previous statements in which you confirmed the death can be considered once the brain stops emitting its electrical signals. For the umpteenth time, I proved you wrong regarding your last dispute. What's improbable for you is not what's observable in reality, they are completely two different things; reality does not behave as you think it to behave. I think that's obvious enough.
  14. Hypotheses or not, I still can't figure out how someone can experiment perceptions with a flat electrical brain activity signal, which is what most of the cases describe anyway.
  15. You are definitely wrong. I recommend you to check out the NDE's literature.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.