Talk:Dead on arrival

message: First responders most certainly are qualified to pronounce patients as deceased. Dead on arrival refers to arrival to an event (i.e. arrival of firefighters, paramedics, police, etc.), not arrival to the hospital. To quote Brady Emergency Care (8th ed.) (an EMT-B textbook), "When Not to Begin CPR or to Terminate CPR":
"Usually, of course, you will perform CPR when the patient has no pulse. However, there are special circumstances in which CPR should not be initiated even though the patient has no pulse.
* Obvious mortal wounds (...)
* Rigor mortis (...)
* Obvious decomposition.
* A line of lividity (...)
* Stillbirth (...)
"In all cases, if you are in doubt, seek a physicians advice." (p.818)
Perhaps this is not the case in all jurisdictions, but it is ccertainly NOT the norm to force providers to provide CPR unconditionally to any pulseless patient they come across. Do you really think an EMT can't pronounce a decapitated patient? Shaggorama 08:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: First Responders

message: It is really amazing how many things it is possible to start an edit war about.  added a "See also" section with two items to this article. This was reverted by .  restored the section, but was reverted. I stated to N0n3up in their talk page that I, too, found the "See also"-addition in accordance with the guideline WP:SEEALSO. N0n3up said that they . Nevertheless, they again reverted when JesseRafe again restored the section, this time partly self-reverted to add one of the items.
The arguments brought forward against inclusion, mostly in edit summaries, are weird reading. The edit summary in the first revert by N0n3up was , but no reason was given for removal. The edit summary of the next revert said  and . JesseRafe explained that "See also"-entries never are sourced and asked about what image was mentioned. At about the same time I raised the same things in their talk page, to which they replied , then went on to explain that an emergency department is , which actually is the only argument they have ever used in this revert war that relates to the content. Regarding their mention of image, they said that , which seems to me to be complete nonsense. After they had "kinda agreed", they reverted again, saying  before they finally added one of the entries back.
The argument about "physical place" vs. "term" is effectively shot down when the entry "Mortuary" is accepted and reinserted. So "Mortuary" is acceptable, while "Resus" is disruptive? Then you have lost me. Mortuary is also a place. To put it crude: A DOA is when you end up in the Mortuary instead of the Emergency department.
My opinion is that both entries are well within the scope of the WP:SEEALSO guideline:  
Needless to say, N0n3up has no consensus for removing the "See also" link. My only objection is that the term "Resus" is a redirect. I will therefore add the direct link to "Emergency department" instead. --T*U (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also 

message: On the summary of the article, the last sentence reads:
They may also never wake up.
Isn't this WP:TOOMUCH? --Malikussaid (talk) 00:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of it was too much and was contested by another editor as well. I deleted most of that for being shoddily written and not really imparting information. Opencooper (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessary Sentence 

message: dad on arrival  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4DD7:C52B:0:15F:5032:5814:5A04 (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  my siblings dont believe me