Talk:Heroic measure

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Psychiatric medicine?

Does involuntary hospitalization of suicidal patients count? It's a dangerous practice(there are sources on, for example, greatly increased suicide risk[1][2][3] to potentially support this) but used when the patient is expected to die without it. Especially next to CPR's bruised and broken ribs setting the bar fairly low, it seems to fit the definition in the lede. 66.190.13.201 (talk) 23:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations II

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 June 2023 and 11 August 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Detrue, MagdielRivera, Keyapatel11 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by 23W1k1UCSF (talk) 18:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Information Necessary

After reading through this article, it seems that further information is required to more accurately describe what heroic measures are. Therefore, the following suggestions are provided to create a more comprehensive page for users to understand "heroic measures":

Background Information - when and where was the term "heroic measures" coined?
Additional Examples of instances that would be considered "Heroic Measures" - include examples within multiple different fields/medical specialties (ex: Pediatrics, Geriatrics, etc.)

Keyapatel11 (talk) 22:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

Peer review done by Group Obturator Hernia Jt2524 (talk) 17:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? (explain)

The draft submission does reflect a neutral point of view. It did not feel like the group provided more content for or against heroic measures. Instead, they presented all the different factors that need to be considered and explained their impact on the relevant party in an unbiased manner. It makes the reader aware of the implications of heroic measures and broadens their perspective on the topic. One thing I did notice was the use of "patient" in the ethical considerations section ("...what type of treatment is best for the patient."). It would be best to change the wording to avoid using the word patient in this article. Jt2524 (talk) 09:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? (explain)

The edits contain citations to sources that are both freely available as well as widespread and are in line with wikipedia citation guidelines. Given that this is such a difficult topic to research, the group did very well on finding relevant materials that help with the information. Immanueltjahjadi (talk) 15:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? (explain)

The edits appear to be largely consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style. The headers and subheaders are orgnanized logically, making it easy to navigate. The use of citation is in line with Wikipedia standards. However, there are some areas that could be improved for better alignment with the manual of style: In the introduction, the phrase "enacting sewage detection of the virus during the COVID-19 pandemia" seems out of place. While it is cited, the relevance to the main topic might not be immediately clear to all readers. A brief explanation or a smoother transition might be helpful. In addition, there are some grammatical errors such as "an limb" which should be "a limb." Overall, the article aligns reasonably well with Wikipedia's manual style. Wilsontongtong (talk) 23:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do the edits reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion? (explain) Immanueltjahjadi (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The group has done a good job in making sure the language supports diversity, equity, and inclusion. The only thing I would change is the word "individual" or "patient" (in one case) to "person" or "people". In addition, I would change oncology doctors to oncology physicians. In the CPR and Amputations sections, I would recommend changing the language "one can argue". For example, instead of "one can argue that CPR...", try something along the lines of "CPR may be medically necessary given the other alternative is death" or even language that is simpler. Even if the team decides not to use these suggestions, I believe that the article is strong and the language is reflective of DEI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emil Tran UCSF (talk • contribs) 22:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The group has contributed more information to the article by adding sections for examples and a discussion on the ethics of heroic measure. I believe the group has achieved its overall goals for improvement. I appreciated that they started out defining what heroic measure is in an easy to understand way and followed that with the CPR example to further solidify understanding. However, I do think the article could benefit from at least one more example of a heroic measure. Jt2524 (talk) 09:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The group did an amazing job giving ethical considerations while also having a neutral point of view, which is incredibly difficult to do. I appreciated the examples and never knew that CPR was considered a heroic measure, I always thought of it as a basic life saving skill. Cancer and End-of-Life planning is also a harsh topic, but they did an amazing job being neutral as well as informative. Immanueltjahjadi (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The group has done a great job of contributing more information to the article with a neutral point of view, especially because the topic itself can be the subject of very difficult conversations. I like how the group included common examples of heroic measures and also a section discussing child decisions.Emil Tran UCSF (talk) 22:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The group has given readers a clear picture of what heroic measures are by using real-life examples such as CPR. Talking about something as tough as end-of-life planning is tricky, but the group managed to do it in a way that's both respectful and helpful. The group has met its improvement goals since they started with a basic explanation and then added more detail. This would help anyone new to the topic to get a good grasp of it. Overall, they've done a good job and the changes on the article is huge. Wilsontongtong (talk) 23:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]