You
really can't see the capacity for doctors to misdiagnose? Really?
Ok then:
From the Wiki article about brain death (isn't that one you tried to use to prove
your point?):
The case of Zach Dunlap, who was declared brain dead but later recovered may be seen to undermine this presumption. However, since he was declared dead only a few hours after presentation, he did not yet meet the American Academy of Neurology's brain death criteria, so he should not have been declared dead, and would not have met UK test conditions in any case. This is clearly a case of negligent misdiagnosis.
and:
40% of coma patients in a ‘vegetative state’ may be misdiagnosed, says a new report.
And those are malpractice cases, not misdiagnosis', WHY? Because they did not wait the
specified time. Ergo, it wasn't a
misdiagnosis, seeing as they did not diagnose
according to the preset criteria, rather, it was blatent
mal-practice.
In the original article I cited (from a reputable medical news site) the woman was brain dead for
17 hours, which MEETS, and EXCEEDS the criteria of proof according to law. In the cases
you have cited, none of them have met this proof. Just as in the case I cited from msbn, the woman who was being embalmed while still alive had NOT met the proper criteria. As she was not brain dead for
the specified length of time.
Malpractice is NOT the same as a misdiagnosis.
The case you have cited is malpractice.
See above.
You could have quoted from Frankenstein and it would mean as much...
Are you here, particpating on a Christian website designed to encourage discourse between people's of various faiths, or people of none (if there is such a thing) and insulting our Scripture?
Why would you do such a thing if your motive was
pure?
This is the ULTIMATE troll, bait and switch..
Do you also troll sites which have their loved ones deceased and tell the grievers that their loved ones are gone forever though they cling to hope, or that they're already dead because their brain has ceased to function though they be hopeful for recovery?
C'mon, have HEART!
I like the "reality of the truth" part. It made me chuckle.
I cited many articles, and you've been squirming to escape the reality of what the concensous is, even before it was given, because you knew it was true, even before you chose to deny it..
Why not, rather, look at the material in a non-subjective manner? You might actually learn something..
Thanks for that link. Here's something from
your article that backs up
my point (you didn't really read the article, did you...)
On rare occasions, a person's heart rate and breathing can drop to undetectable levels, leading doctors to erroneously declare a patient dead, said neurosurgeon Juan Mendoza Vega, a member of the Colombian National Medical Ethics Board.
"It can happen," he said. "But it's not a matter of coming back to life because the person was never dead."
Do I agree with
everything anyone says (Jesus excepted, of course), no.
BUT, do I allow the freedom of their beliefs so long as they don't attempt to force them upon hapless victims, certainly!
Persons who do not meet the medical and lawful criteria for being dead, are not SUPPOSED to be presumed so, without proper examination and time. Anything less, is malpractice.
The doctor who declared that poor woman who was emblamed
while was she was still alive is sued for
malpratice, not
misdiagnosis of her death. For the doctor never WAITIED the
specified amount of time, therefore what he did was illegal, not merely a mistake, but a blatent disregard for the RULES of practice here in the America's.
It seems to me you are speaking of 'Information-theoretic death", not 'death' as the world knows it.
This is only an assertion by Harvard, not an actual FACT, hence the term 'theoretic'.
It is
not backed by rigorous study and research, empirical evidence.. To date!
Here is some info on this subject that I think might best reflect what I believe you are attempting to convey;
Wiki on Information-theoretic death said:
A person is dead according to the information-theoretic criterion if their memories, personality, hopes, dreams, etc. have been destroyed in the information-theoretic sense. That is, if the structures in the brain that encode memory and personality have been so disrupted that it is no longer possible in principle to restore them to an appropriate functional state, then the person is dead.
If the structures that encode memory and personality are sufficiently intact that inference of the memory and personality are feasible in principle, and therefore restoration to an appropriate functional state is likewise feasible in principle, then the person is not dead.
Is this what you believe?
Anecdotal evidence is no basis for knowledge. And anyway, all this is far afield from the issue. It's painfully obvious that our brains are who "we" are. I'm not sure why you're not getting it. If someone removed your brain and replaced it with an electronic device that made your body move around and talk, it wouldn't be "you" at all.
Your body is not
just a
brain hun.
YOU are a
complex person, with ALL factulities of spirit, soul
and body.
Your body itself is complex; with marrow, bones, joints, muscles and organs.
To say that only
one organ is
YOU, is to imply the rest is unnecessary..
1 Corinthians 12:14-17
For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
.
