Talk:Beating heart cadaver

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Beating heart cadaver/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

• Source 1 needs a publisher and ISBN.
• Sources 2-5 are not formatted properly. There shouldn't be <>s around the links. I would suggest using a {{cite web}} template.
• What makes this website reliable? I see no authorship credits or editorial policy.
• "Because the heart is beating and it is warm, people may have difficulty believing it is dead." - not in reference given.

Also, this article is really, really, really short. I don't know much about medical topics at all, so I'd probably be better off not trying to expand this, but I can tell you that there are 144 hits on Google Books alone that could easily build up this article. Reviewer: Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kelli Broessel.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Need to back up claims with sources

24.0.133.234, I and other editors have warned you about this before. Your thinking that something is true is not good enough. The source you cite has to back it up. Your latest edit was not consistent with the cited source. Funcrunch (talk) 01:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Disputed section

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beating_heart_cadaver&diff=prev&oldid=598629309 <----the dispute now changed back to incorrect information in the article.

This statement has been bothering me because it is not true. In changing the statement, I probably made a mistake as Funcrunch pointed-out. The problem is that the statement was wrong and to re-refrence it, did not seem to be the solution either. I could probably find an accurate reference,(there are some internal ones on WP-see organ harvest, and just delete the about.com refrence?24.0.133.234 (talk) 01:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

If you believe some text in an article is wrong or misleading, first find a reliable source that you believe contains factually correct information on the subject, and then make the edit, citing that source. Funcrunch (talk) 01:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

And Funcrunch--the ref that was already there which may have supported other statements in that section, I maintain that it was just wrong, so I re-worded that one sentence, BUT-----there is no mandate NOT to add factual information unless there is a reference. If I get a chance, I might repay the favor of challenging all of your edits on every article that you have worked on so that you can add a ref. and even-if having a ref. or cite for every thing that you add is your personal standard, it is not by any means part of WP's standards. I will defer to the WP standards where science or medical info. is added, BUT-wikipedia is not a medical dictionary, so there is even some lee-way there, as-is so painfully apparent from the dreadful condition of some articles.24.0.133.234 (talk) 02:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Citing reliable sources for all factual information absolutely is a WP standard. Threatening retaliation against me by stalking all of my previous edits for pointing that out is simply immature. Funcrunch (talk) 03:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Clarification: Per WP:VERIFY: "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." The fact that many of your edits have been challenged and reverted by other editors should make it clear that what you consider to be "factual" or "truthful" is not beyond a challenge, and you should provide citations to back up your claims. Funcrunch (talk) 03:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

If what you want to call what you have been doing to my edits as "stalking"-(quote Funcrunch), then I'm sorry that you saw that as a threat. And I have been assuming that you have been "stalking" my edits in good faith, so any offer to do the same for yourself is not meant to be retaliation ;024.0.133.234 (talk) 17:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

You specifically threatened "challenging all of your edits on every article that you have worked on". I have done no such thing to you. Funcrunch (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I used the word "challenge" in the way that it is defined as per WP edits,(not like challenge as a duel or a threat lol) so sorry if you thought that I meant something else there. You have been "challenging"-again, viewed by myself as a good faith type challenge, a lot of my edits including topics that have nothing to do with this, like my user page . So I thought that I might do you the same favor and give you a heads-up there. You can move this to your or mine TP but it does not belong here btw24.0.133.234 (talk) 18:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Annotated Bibliography

1. Saposnik, G., Basile, V., and Young, B. 2009. Movements in Brain Death: Systematic Review. Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences 36: 154-160.

This review article will contribute to the Wikipedia article of beating-heart cadavers because it takes a multitude of other studies of humans who are brain-dead and considered beating-heart cadavers may actually have brain activity. They found that up to 50% of these subjects who were pronounced brain-dead may actually have had some brain function still present. They published this article to highlight the importance of making certain people do not still have signs of brain activity and recovery before taking their organs or practicing on them.

2. Potts, M. 2007. Truthfulness in transplantation: non-heart-beating organ donation. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 2: 1.

This article was published to highlight some of the issues around beating-heart and non-beating-heart cadavers. Many believe that declaring someone brain dead with irreversible cranial damage is nothing more than a ploy to increase the organ supply to meet the ever growing demand. I think this would be an interesting position to mention in the Wikipedia article regarding the purpose of a beating-heart cadaver and what regulations there are around what considers someone to be “brain dead” and what responsibility the transplant surgeons have to tell the recipient of the organs that they came from a technically live person.

3. Bastami, S., Matthes, O., Krones, T., & Biller-Andorno, N. 2013. Systematic Review of Attitudes Toward Donation After Cardiac Death Among Healthcare Providers and the General Public. Critical care medicine, 41: 897-905.

This article was published to evaluate how people’s attitudes toward organ donation of a person who is brain dead but still living and someone who has undergone cardiac arrest. This difference in opinions among the public would be interesting to highlight in the article on Wikipedia because it could offer insight in an ethics section since beating-heart cadavers are often used in relation with some kind of organ donation or study purpose.

4.Gross, T. (2012 March, 19). Blurring the Lines between Life and Death. National Public Radio. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/2012/03/19/148296627/blurring-the-line-between-life-and-death

This interview involved an author of a book derived from decades of research about death and dying and medicinal uses of the dead. The interview offers a few definitions and explanations of the purpose of beating-heart cadavers which could be used to help bulk up the Wikipedia article’s introduction to what a beating heart cadaver is, and its purpose as well as evaluate the general practice of organ donation in real life scenarios and touch on the different moral and ethical constraints on using beating heart cadavers. He also provides information on pregnant beating-heart cadavers which could be added to that section in the Wikipedia article.

5. Zamperetti, N., Bellomo, R., and Ronco, C. 2003. Defining Death in non-heart beating organ donors. Journal of Medical Ethics 29: 182-185.

This article provides support for beating-heart organ donation. It brings forth the argument that in a non heart beating organ donor, doctors cannot determine if the organ is still functioning or test its state. But it also brings into play the component of whether or not brain death is death enough. It says that many functions including hair growth still occur on beating-heart cadavers so the fine line between functioning and brain-dead is a fine line to walk before organs begin being harvested. I think this could help with the ethics section of the Wikipedia article and also help provide interesting facts like the hair growth on beating-heart cadavers which many people may not consider and gives a very human and living effect to the image of a beating-heart cadaver. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelli Broessel (talk • contribs) 00:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC) Kelli Broessel (talk) 03:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Kelli Broessel

Lead Section and Proposed Changes

A beating heart cadaver is a body that is pronounced brain-dead and connected to a medical ventilator which keeps the heart beating and other organs viable and functioning. The heart contains pacemaker cells that will cause the heart to continue beating even when a patient is brain-dead. Other organs in the body do not have this capability and need the brain to be functioning to send signals to the organs to carry out their functions. A beating heart cadaver requires a ventilator to provide oxygen to its blood, but the heart will continue to beat on its own even in the absence of brain activity. [2] This allows organs to be preserved for a longer period of time in the case of a transplant or donation. A small number of cases in recent years indicate that it can also be implemented for a brain-dead pregnant women to reach the full term of her pregnancy (Gross, 2003). There is an advantage to beating heart cadaver organ donation because doctors are able to see the vitals of the organs and tell if they are stable and functioning before transplanting to an ailing patient (Zamperetti, 2003). This is not possible in a donation from someone pronounced dead. There is a stigma around beating heart cadavers regarding the accuracy doctors have in pronouncing someone brain dead due to recent discoveries of brain activity in subjects that were classified as “brain-dead” (Saposnik, 2009). In addition, the organ donation world is desperate to widen its pool of donors to meet the ever increasing demand due to the heightened rates of organ destroying diseases. As diseases progress, the functionality of organs is diminished and for some a new organ is the only chance of survival. Heart disease, diabetes, and respiratory disease are among the leading causes of death worldwide and each condition could be improved if a new organ is received. However, some argue that using another person’s body purely as a means to an end, dehumanizes the patient (Bastami, 2013).

I propose to make a few changes including adding an "ethics" section and delete the "social" section currently in the article. I think that essentially ethics would better describe what the social issues are disputing. I would bring in the idea that some people being used as beating heart cadavers may not actually have irreversible brain damage and there have been discoveries of doctors pulling the plug prematurely. I would also address the issue of how dead is a beating heart cadaver and the personal opinion that many people have that it is inhumane to use a person as a means to an end and keep them alive for other people. Yet, the other argument to that is that there are people who will die if they do not receive that life saving donation of a lung that came from someone who was a beating heart cadaver. I also plan to flesh out the section on pregnancy and beating heart cadavers with more information I collect since it is an interesting application of this process. Kelli Broessel (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)Kelli Broessel

Beat Heart Cadaver Peer Review - Mariah Beebe

Hi Kelli,

I loved reading about your topic in general. I found it very interesting to read about. I particularly liked how easy it was for me to understand your article. The medical terms were put simply and they were easy for me (a non-science person) to understand. I thought it was interesting to read about the different debates that are happening on your topic. I also thought your article had good flow and it was well written with good evidence to back up what you were saying.

I think that if you could improve anywhere in your article it would be just adding more research. I think it would be interesting to hear more about the pregnant women who were beating heart cadavers and if any of them were successful as beating heart cadavers. I think that if you were to go a little bit more in depth to your article it would be an improvement.

I think that from reading your article it has made me want to include more sources in mine and research mine more in-depth. I also think I could get more primary sources as opposed to secondary sources because that would help as well.

I really enjoyed reading your article!!!

Mariah Beebe

Neutrality of ethics section

Granted, I'm not a medical professional, and have not read nearly enough about the field to have a real informed opinion. But it seems to me from an outsider's perspective that there are serious academic concerns about the definition of brain death, especially in relation to BHCs, and their consciousness during organ transplants. In fact, one of the relevant oppositions is cited within this very article [1]. The ethics section sounds rather dismissive at best and haughty at worst (we know what we're doing, all of you just can't get over your psychological fears). Perhaps someone more well informed than myself could make improvements? Fermiboson (talk) 02:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)