you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 72 points 3 months ago (52 children)

He's not dead.
Comatose, non-responsive, vegetable? Probably.
But the hospotal isn't going to keep a rotting corpse for a month.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 52 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 3 months ago*

    Shit, it's Kentucky hospital too...

    They're not exactly the best at making that whole "alive or dead" call.

    Natasha Miller says she was getting ready to do her job preserving donated organs for transplantation when the nurses wheeled the donor into the operating room.

    She quickly realized something wasn't right. Though the donor had been declared dead, he seemed to her very much alive.

    "He was moving around — kind of thrashing. Like, moving, thrashing around on the bed," Miller told NPR in an interview. "And then when we went over there, you could see he had tears coming down. He was crying visibly."

    The donor's condition alarmed everyone in the operating room at Baptist Health hospital in Richmond, Ky., including the two doctors, who refused to participate in the organ retrieval, she says.

    "The procuring surgeon, he was like, 'I'm out of it. I don't want to have anything to do with it,' " Miller says. "It was very chaotic. Everyone was just very upset."

    Miller says she overheard the case coordinator at the hospital for her employer, Kentucky Organ Donor Affiliates (KODA), call her supervisor for advice.

    "So the coordinator calls the supervisor at the time. And she was saying that he was telling her that she needed to 'find another doctor to do it' – that, 'We were going to do this case. She needs to find someone else,' " Miller says. "And she's like, 'There is no one else.' She's crying — the coordinator — because she's getting yelled at."

    https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2024/10/16/nx-s1-5113976/organ-transplantion-mistake-brain-dead-surgery-still-alive

    I guess we should be surprised Mitch isn't an organ donor tho...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 47 points 3 months ago (38 children)

    Disagree. They made a corpse deliver a baby against the family’s wishes. The people in charge are pure evil

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 38 child comments
  • [+] -25 points 3 months ago (37 children)

    That's not physically possable.
    I think you have a different idea what corpse is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 37 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 3 months ago* (29 children)
  • [+] -13 points 3 months ago* (26 children)

    Good, bad, fascist, whatever, doesn't matter, to a disagreement on nomenclature. A biologically functioning body with a working ATP cycle, isn't a corpse. Ethics and morality are irrelevant.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 3 months ago (25 children)

    brain dead is considered dead.

    no matter if cells still have atp.

    it's a corpse.

    there's no biological definition for human death. besides a vague "is it curable"

    death used to be cardiac death, but we figured out how to save people who had cardiac death, so we move the goalpost to brain death.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 25 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    It's literally not a corpse, it's a brain-dead person / body.

    You started this debate with Steve by using sensationalizing language, and I'm here to provide definitions and lay this discussion to rest:

    https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/brain-dead?q=Braindead

    https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/corpse?q=Corpse

    We can all agree that what they've done is horrible, there's no need to distort language to make a point.

    A corpse can not carry a pregnancy, a brain-dead body apparently can if assisted.

    I'll see myself out.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (20 children)

    If brain dead is dead bacteria are dead.

    A brain dead body isn't a person, but that doesn't make it a corpse. All the biological functions continue. The ATP cycle continues. The body takes in nutrients and uses them to maintain their normal biological functions. Corpses don't do that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago (18 children)

    Actually we do have a pretty solid biological definition for life.

    That which takes in nutrients, processes them to support itself, and expells waste products. Anything that dose those things is life. That's why viruses aren't considered alive. They don't do those things.

    The person part you're right, is more philosophical. I only mention it because it seems to better fit what people are calling "dead" in this case.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (17 children)

    OK, spores aren't alive. dissecated watebears aren't alive

    the highschool definition isnt used by biologists because it's oversimplified and doesn't hold up to the diversity of life.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (16 children)

    All of that is true.
    None if it refutes anything I'm saying.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (14 children)
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (13 children)

    which takes in nutrients, processes them to support itself, and expells waste products.

    Is fire alive? it takes in nutrients (Hydro carbons+oxygens), reacts them to support itself, and expells waste products (CO2+water), in fact, that's the same input and output as many organisms. Is fire a living organisms?

    you missed growth (also fire)

    and reproduction (also fire, but also problematic as it means a single rabbit isn't alive but a couple are)

    BTW, not an appeal to authority, just a notice that I might know what I'm talking about. I have a PhD in biology.

    there are more interesting candidates for life definition, Dawkins considered that maybe the question is a waste of time and what matters is the genetic unit, "living things" are just things that spread genetic material.

    Others theories are based on chaos theory, thermodynamic cascades,matter/energy waves...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (12 children)

    Fire can be thought of as alive, in a sense. I'd hesitate to say it isn't. But realy, it's more accurately a chain reaction. Fire isn't a 'thing', it's not a system of repeatitively interacting parts. That said, I have no problem extending the label "Life" to non-biological systems. A machine that can maintain and repair itself is certainly alive.

    Reproduction also isn't necessary. DNA or other form of heritable instructions aren't necessary. Muels and Ligers are genetic dead ends, but very much alive themselves.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (11 children)

    fire, isn't alive. it isn't biologically.

    and we aren't a thing, we replace our matter constantly, hence the matter wave idea.

    The point is that basically every definition will fail in some edge cases.

    and it ends up being more about philosophy than biology,

    the whole point is that there's no biological definition for life. we have one for medical context (brain dead, but mostly depending if it can be reversed, as soon as/if we figure how to resuscitate a brain dead person, we will have another threshold for the definition).

    I think there's a really good infinite monkey cage episode about this, one of their best episodes, I think it's "what is death" from series 8. not 100% sure. but it's a great listen anyways

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (11 children)
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (10 children)

    there, you're getting too philosophical and abstract.

    fire isn't alive, isn't cannot evolve, no evolution... and you're definitely failing biology.

    point is that the highschool definition is bs, no biologist uses it, yet you're stubbornly stick to it like a contrarian.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago* (9 children)

    Again. Alive isn't biological.

    You're very hung up on only biological things being alive. Which is strange when you yourself said biology has not good definition.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (8 children)

    Biology is the study is life.

    If it is alive, it is under the purview of Biology.

    what you're doing, is trying to fit anything that fits the Highschool definition as alive. and you end up with chemistry rather than life.

    You are very hunged up on highschool oversimplifications.

    if fire is alive, would using a lighter count as abiogenesis?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (7 children)

    there's no biological definition for life.

    Biology is the study of life.

    Do you see how that doesn't work?

    Biologists called themselves "The Study of Life", some 200 years ago. They did so with very little knowledge, and lots of ambition. Also known as hubris.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (6 children)

    And fire is clearly chemistry and not biology.

    We just study life and don't bother with the definition, its a "you know it when you see it" kind of thing

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (5 children)

    its a “you know it when you see it” kind of thing

    I'm not sure you're a good advocate for the sciences.

    I also think you might have reading comprehension issues. I did explain, I think four times, how fire isn't technically alive, but in certain circumstances it can be a useful analogy. I don't know why you keep banging on that drum.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (4 children)

    'how fire isn’t technically alive'

    Why not?

    It fits all the high school definition?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (3 children)

    I explained that.
    See. You didn't actually read what I wrote. You're not good at this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (2 children)

    you just said it can be considered alive, but then you say isn't

    my point is simple, ask anyone with a biology degree,. that highschool definition is oversimplified and not useful. there is no working definition of life

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    You really don't know how to read do you?

    But really, it’s more accurately a chain reaction. Fire isn’t a ‘thing’, it’s not a system of repetitively interacting parts.

    Fire is not a thing, because it is not a system of reusable parts that interact with each other multiple times. It’s better described as a chemical chain reaction. Every molecule is used exactly once.

    I never mentioned high school. I never took biology in high school. I took physics instead. I gave you my specific definition. You thought it sounded like something you remember from high school, and ignored what I actually said.

    That which takes in nutrients, processes them to support itself, and expels waste products.

    Fire doesn't actually support itself. Each flame is gone in an instant, unique to the molecule it came from.
    But is creates the illusion of continuity, which can make life a useful analogy for it sometimes.

    If you still don't understand. I don't know how better I can explain it for you. I've already given you too much credit. I'm done.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • Fire 100% supports itself, each flame dies but that is like saying each of your proteins get denatured and recycled, the carbon you eat eventually turns into CO2, all your matter changes at some point.

    That which takes in nutrients, processes them to support itself, and expels waste products. It is not a good definition of life, as it also excludes spores or many creatures in stasis, where they have absolutely no metabolism, wont take nutrients, process them or expel anything.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (6 children)
  • [–] -3 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    If brain death is dead, single cell organisms are dead.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    We’re not single called organisms

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Of course not. But the definition of death you gave, doesn't distinguish between forms of life.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    The conversation is about human death. The question is at what point is a human being considered dead. If cellular function is brought into it, then a rotting corpse is teeming with bacterial life.

    You are right that biological functions of the human body can continue well past the point that someone would be broadly considered dead. I just think that a lack of brain function is a good classification of when to consider that someone has died.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 20 points 3 months ago* (3 children)

    They will if they're getting leaned on politically, but you are right in that he's not sitting in a bed, they'll just shove him into the morge if they have one.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 36 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Nothing political about it...

    He can be "alive" like Terry Schiavo

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo_case

    And they can likely keep him like that for years, because it's machines doing all the work.

    No one can pressure the hospital to do anything, as long as the checks keep clearing, they'll keep the machines running.

    What can (and is) being done, is the Governor requesting proof that McConnell is capable of fulfilling his duties from McConnell's office

    They want to stall till August 4th, because if McConnell is declared incompetent before then, it triggers a special election which allows Maise to run as an independent after losing the Republican primary.

    On 8/4/26 they can say McConnell is incompetent to hold office, and the normal election will happen which Maise can't run in.

    This entire show is because Trump doesn't want Maise to run, because if he does a Dem will likely win and if not it'll be Maise.

    But Beshar (KY governor) asking for Mitch's status is what prompted all the Republicans to spend 20 minutes talking at his unresponsive body over a phone. That's why they reacted

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 3 months ago

    Every hospital has a morgue. They deal with too many dead people daily, they aren't going to be moving them out every time someone dies.

    Besides, they won't leave bodies sitting in beds they could use for living, paying, patients.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    They aren't going to let him rot. That isn't connected to the possibility of him ever regaining consciousness whether a replacement is called for.

    I don't think anyone here thinks he's literally just sitting out on a hospital bed flat lined.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment