Talk:Brainstem death

message: Oppose merger.  It seems this article describes a condition that is different than brain death.  Brain death refers to actual death of the brain stem, whereas brain-stem death as described in this article seems to refer to a diagnosis whereby if certain functionality is absent, the brain-stem can be presumed to be dead.  69.140.164.142 05:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The premise that the UK criteria are prognostic rather than diagnostic is precisely this article's conclusion, which you are restating as fact. Opposing merger on the grounds that brain-stem death is not part of the same issue as the definition of cerebral death in the United States is to beg the question and to preclude an international perspective on the issue. VEBott (talk) 12:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger

message: This article has a bunch of information, and it has a bunch of references.  But there are no citations within the text pointing to the references.
Also, some of the language used in this article is emotionally loaded ("unfortunate", etc.). Mbarbier (talk) 06:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs to attribute sources 

message: This article was originally excessively argumentative and expressed a minority viewpoint as the consensus of the profession. It urgently needed complete revision by a competent neurologist, with the minority viewpoint given space proportional to the rather limited support it enjoys amongst those who understand these matters. As it stood it was an example of everything that is wrong with Wikipedia. I have edited extensively but am not qualified to do more than eliminate the most obvious bias towards views stemming essentially from a rejection of all neurological rather than cardiac definitions of death. Tharyps the Molossian (talk) 22:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serious unrepresentative bias 

message: I was asked to have a quick look at this, with a view to article development. It's a quick look, so excuse rough notes;
*lede's all wrong; needs to 'adequately summarize the whole'
some refs lack dates; format of refs isn't all consistent - this is one of the main probs on GA
*overlinks (e.g. United Kingdon)
*Title might need changing; it is specific to 'brain stem death criteria in the uk' - it doesn't cover 'brain stem death'; this also makes it hard for me to asses if it 'adequately covers the subject' - because the subject remit is unclear
*Makes assumptions about context - e.g. in "background",  - what conference? Where, when? OK, it's defined in the lede, but...that's not what lede is for; see WP:LEDE
*3 dabs - breathe, [[medulla], anoxia
*'conclusion' - too short for a section, and sounds a bit WP:OR - we don't draw conclusions
*Language could do with a going-over to reduce the techno-speak; e.g.  - most of us plebs won't understand it
*Wikilinking needs work. For example, linking 'death' and 'heart' is not appropriate; other links such as e.g. Brain death would help 'build the web' and might help understanding - see WP:LINKING
* - does it really need all those refs bunched up?
*Images (pics) would definitely help
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement.
*Needs copyedit for MOS issues; 
:*punctuation on refs, for example;  - that comma needs to go before the <ref>
:*Shouldn't have a blank line after the section headings
  Chzz  ►  08:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bit of a quick review 

message: The "controversies" section seems hopelessly one sided and full of likely oiriginal research: "It clearly confused... It assumed... implicitly claimed that... speciousness..." etc. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what "likely original research" means here. If there is original research, there should be a statement like, "Egor and I in our basement zapped a bloke's brain w/ 200 Megavolts of 75 Herz electricity for 3.5 seconds and got these results." (That would be the forbidden original research!) Otherwise, I would just regard what someone wrote (not based on 2ndary sources) as opinion. (EnochBethany (talk) 04:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think what he's talking about is OR. It seems to be closer to weasel words. - Purplewowies (talk) 04:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV issues 

message: Someone has conflated "brain stem death" with "brain death", thus perpetuating the confusion which has dogged discussion of these states over the years. I have tried, repeatedly, to edit the first section to put this right and have tried to remove subsequent material relevant to "brain death" so that the article refers only to "brain stem death", hopefully clarifying the issue. I have also tried to remove the disputed 'Controversial aspects' section and renumbered the references accordingly. My efforts have been unsuccessful and I see the corrupt version - no credit to Wikipedia, which I have hitherto admired as a source of accurate information - reposted after I've left.
I need expert help with the citations. The automatic formatting doesn't seem to accept the reference renumbering. If someone with the technical skills required will help put this section right, I will make yet another attempt to sort it. But I seem powerless to correct it on my own. DWEDWEvansMD (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have unmerged Brain death back into a separate article.  said that "Brain death was merged into this article for a reason." but there does not appear to have been any discussion as to what that reason was.  proposed the merge (last year) and then implemented the merge. The lack of vocal opposition on the talk page does not indicate support, and since this is clearly contested I have undone the bold merge in keeping with WP:BRD. Since I am thoroughly unqualified to add to this discussion from my own knowledge and have not read either article I have no opinion, but should there be further/renewed support for the merger I strongly recommend continuing this discussion here so that it can be explained why they should or should not be separate articles. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I assumed that there was a consensus for it to be merged, but I didn't have time to look into it, so I didn't know that the merge was done with no discussion. - Purplewowies (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Differences Between Brain stem death and Brain death

message: Most of this article pertains only to the United Kingdom and, to a lesser degree, to the United States. This article needs to be expanded to address other countries as well. It needs a much more global perspective. Also, info in some parts of this article does not clearly indicate what countries/regions the info pertains to. For example, in the "Diagnosis" section, there is a list describing the pre-conditions and criteria for "brain stem death". However, it does not clearly indicate what country/region that list of pre-conditions and criteria is for. It isn't for all countries, since the article already said the conditions/criteria vary. It does mention that the list is from the "Code of Practice", but it still doesn't specify what country uses it. However, since further down in that same section (underneath the list) a "UK Code of Practice" is mentioned, based on context it seems like the author might be referring to the same thing as the "Code of Practice", but I can't be sure. It should be clarified. There are numerous other places in the article that need geographic clarification. The article may be able to provide adequate global perspective by adding more information for other countries/regions, however it might be necessary to rewrite parts of the article to adequately address the current lack of global perspective. Mhadj001 (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Globalize

message: Per request at my talk page I put the references into the most common wiki format.   Three references were not cited.  Since this format displays only cited references, I left those three listed.   For the record, here is the whole list just before I removed all but the 3 unused ones. North8000 (talk) 03:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: These loose ends have now all been resolved. North8000 (talk) 13:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference formatting work

message: (Copied from my talk page, written to DW Evans:)
:Nice work.  With all of the changes in the article, culminated by your recent changes in response to my notes, I think that the POV tag can go and I'll try taking it off.  Regarding the last top level tag, "globalization" would be an issue if the concept is significant elsewhere but not covered in the article.   You don't have to "prove a negative" in order for that tag to go, but some due diligence and exploration owuld be good for that purpose and also a good idea for for making a good article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Update 12/16/11

message: Note: there have been substantial discussions regarding this at my talk page. User_talk:North8000#Brain stem death article    North8000 (talk) 23:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: There have been substantial discussions regarding this article at my talk page

message: Beside the changes in the article and limited discussion here, there have been substantial discussions regarding this at my talk page. User_talk:North8000#Brain stem death article.   I think that the immense amount of changes removed the wording that sort of "presumed" Great Britain. Further discussions seemed to have established that this topic exists primarily  or only for a legal standard for death, and one which applies only in the UK, India and Trinidad & Tobago.   And, aside from that it is not a general academic or medial topic.  So, coverage of it in the UK  UK, India and Trinidad & Tobago is coverage everywhere that it exists and so I think we can remove the globalization tag.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Globalization tag

message: At the moment the intro reads Identification of this state carries a very grave prognosis for survival, cessation of heartbeat often occurring within a few days although it may continue for weeks or even months if intensive support is maintained.[1]" 
I can find no support in the literature for the suggestion that a heartbeat can continue for weeks or months. Pallis in ABC of Brain Stem Death cites a number of studies which suggest a maximum of under two weeks before asystole. Unless this claim can be verified I shall remove it. Cooke (talk) 12:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest only trimming the part (e.g. phrase) that is problematic. North8000 (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure - that's all I meant, North8000. I've had a look at the justification for this claim, but it's based on work that has been derided by many of the author's peers, and which anyway does not apply to 'brain stem death' as diagnosed by standard criteria. I must say that the more I read this article the weirder it looks. I think it needs a radical rewrite by someone who knows more than I do. 88.97.15.184 (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The person who wrote it is an expert on this specialized concept, but new to Wikipedia.   I was just the opposite and helped.   The "rosetta stone" for interpreting this article is to understand that "brain stem death" here does not refer to a condition, it is a particular (uncommon) standard for defining death.  North8000 (talk) 15:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibility of survival after diagnosis 

message: There was an undiscussed attempted move from "Brain stem" to Brainstem.   Also a mass change of the same type in the wording of the article.     This conflicts with sources.   If anyone is seriously contemplating this, please discuss and obtain consensus first. North8000 (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Undiscussed attempted move and change