Talk:Jahi McMath case/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Jahi McMath case. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

lede

The funny thing is that my whole point of editing that article is to try and conform to NPOV. Can you please explain to me exactly how you see where my edit was biased or more biased than the one that I changed? I am not opposed to other editors changing the lede on that article, and my last edit did take-out some other edits that may be better-worded for the lede , but I had worked pretty hard at trying to fix what I saw as biased, and boldly edited, than another editor came-along and undid my edits with BLP? (did not make sense to me)...and changed it WHOLY /undid the entire NPOV-worded edit that I had done and replaced it with BIAS and misrepresenting the topic of the article, and in my opinion one that was not as helpful to WP readers. I'm psting BOTH versions of the lede here and if you really think #2 is better I would like to know how?

(1)The Jahi McMath case centers on a girl who was diagnosed with brain death following surgery, when she was 13-years-old in California, and the bioethical debate surrounding her family's rejection of the medicolegal finding of irreversible, permanent brain death in this case, and their efforts to maintain her body on mechanical ventilation because she is not clinically dead and the hospital's efforts to terminate treatment

OR

(2)The Jahi McMath case centers on a 13-year-old girl in California who was declared brain-dead following surgery, and the bioethical debate surrounding her family's rejection of the medicolegal findings of death in this case, and their efforts to maintain her body on mechanical ventilation and other measures, which her parents considered to constitute life support of their child but which her doctors considered to be futile treatment of a deceased person. 24.0.133.234 (talk) 19:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

A person is not "diagnosed" with brain death. It is not a disease or condition, it is a state of being. It is accurate and NPOV to state that she was declared brain-dead, because she was. By definition, brain death is irreversible and permanent. Therefore, your version is both inaccurate and unnecessarily wordy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

What NorthBySouthBaranof said plus I have seen no sources say "she is not clinically dead". CombatWombat42 (talk) 19:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

CombatWombat42-She was not clinically dead when she was moved from the Children's hospital back in January. Maybe it was not said specifically worded as "clinical death"/permanent cardiac death, rigor-mortis and beyond..., because it was obvious? But that was the whole point of the case from the way that I understand it.

NorthBySouthBaranof-brain death or permanent irreversible brain-death most certainly IS a "diagnoses" as opposed to a "declaration".(who declared it lol) Mcmath was diagnosed by more than one doctor and with the prescribed number of different tests needed in California and by the Children's hospital policy. That was part of what bothered me with the lede. I disagree with you as far as "brain death" being a "state of being" anyways-too ambiguous-(is it temporary or permanent? complete? irreversible?....)....and anyways I thought that editors on WP were supposed to improve articles which is what I was trying to do, yet you insist on taking all of the improvements that i edited into the lede and putting-back the awkward, dis-informational, lack-of-informational one.

NorthBySouthBaranof-Also your statement that "By definition, brain death is irreversible and permanent" -that is INCORRECT just so you know. Why would we want to delete the EXACT condition that Mcmath was diagnosed-with anyways? In her case, she was diagnosed with irreversible permanent whole brain death.Why be cheap with the words that describe exactly what they said she has?

Also-"the hospital's efforts to terminate treatment"---I don't remember who edited that in, but that was the other side of the case. The hospital was pretty clear on that, they did not want to continue treating Mcmath. Why would we leave-out a clear explanation of the case in the lede? This sentence---->"which her parents considered to constitute life support of their child but which her doctors considered to be futile treatment of a deceased person." is just messy to me, awkward, ungrammatical, and misleading not NPOV, and I did not feel that it belonged in the lede, so I boldly edited it. My version-(number 1) was less "wordy" btw. 24.0.133.234 (talk) 22:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, no, the statement was arranged as it was specifically to represent each point of view. The parents viewed it as life support, the hospital viewed it as futile treatment of a dead person.

Brain death is irreversible and permanent, by definition. Please see the reliable sources cited in our handy article on Brain death. Your declaration that it is "INCORRECT" is both unsourced and itself incorrect. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

UM-did you happen to read the WP Brain deatharticle that you just referred-to here? And please notice that the ref.s in the lede paragraph there explicitly refer-to "diagnoses"-of bd-edited to add24.0.133.234 (talk) 02:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC) And please note that ICM etc.has BD categorized which is by default a "diagnoses")). Quote from that same WP article "Brain death is used as an indicator of legal death in many jurisdictions, but it is defined inconsistently(italics mine24.0.133.234 (talk) 01:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)). Various parts of the brain may keep living when others die, and the term "brain death" has been used to refer to various combinations. For example, although a major medical dictionary says that "brain death" is synonymous with "cerebral death" (death of the cerebrum), the US National Library of Medicine Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) system defines brain death as including the brainstem. The distinctions can be important because, for example, in someone with a dead cerebrum but a living brainstem, the heartbeat and ventilation can continue unaided, whereas in whole-brain death (which includes brain stem death), only life support equipment would keep those functions going."----so, to eliminate the ambiguity, I disagree with you on this again. Brain death from the way that I understand it, when used as a legal term, is defined by whatever criteria the local and state rules use to define "permanent irreversible brain death" with no hope of regaining consciousness. That diagnoses can be reached in different ways depending on where a person happens to be and what tests are used to determine such a condition. I prefer using the exact criteria that was used in Mcmath's case-(and noting so)-and NOT being "general about it, meaning this case specifically), to not confuse readers with for example with ischemic stroke diagnoses with a hope of full recovery ("dead"-areas in an otherwise recoverable brain), or other ailments.24.0.133.234 (talk) 01:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

"The diagnosis of brain death needs to be rigorous, in order to be certain that the condition is irreversible. Legal criteria vary, but in general they require neurological examinations by two independent physicians. The exams must show complete and irreversible absence of brain function (brain stem function in UK),[14] and may include two isoelectric (flat-line) EEGs 24 hours apart (less in other countries where it is accepted that if the cause of the dysfunction is a clear physical trauma there is no need to wait that long to establish irreversibility). The widely-adopted[15] Uniform Determination of Death Act in the United States attempts to standardize criteria. The patient should have a normal temperature and be free of drugs that can suppress brain activity if the diagnosis is to be made on EEG criteria."

Jahi McMath was declared brain-dead in full accordance with the California procedures enacted under the Uniform Determination of Death Act. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Well-I just re-arranged it a little. Now the sentence is too long imo, but more correct. If anyone wants to take a go at it that is fine with me but can we please not edit-in incorrect or incomplete info. that gives an impression of taking one side or the other? 24.0.133.234 (talk) 23:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

24.0.133.234, you were the one waring over semantics in the previous section, it is quite clear to every other editor that the current working for the lead is fine and you are disrupting the encylopedia to make a point. As for "declared dead" read "Since she was declared brain-dead..." from [1] CombatWombat42 (talk) 23:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

"declared" vs "diagnosed"----so what if "declared" is used in a ref.? "diagnosed" is more accurate, and is what happened. It is a matter of semantics yes and to me, "declared" just sounds less informative than "diagnosed". Would someone say that a patient is "declared" to have (insert name of diagnosis here)? So I have to ask WHY it keeps getting rv? Disrupting to make a point? WHAT point would that be??????? Because I like "diagnosed" better than "declared"--I cannot even believe that these are serious statements, although I am trying to AGF here. WHAT POINT IS IT THAT YOU ARE IMPLYING THAT I AM TRYING TO WEASEL-IN HERE? JFTR--I have never disagreed that Mcmath was diagnosed with permanent irreversible brain death. So I just don't get where it appears that i am biased. Confused? Yeah, I have been confused over the biased wording in the article especially because of my admitted cultural differences-the whole dead-not exactly dead was VERY confusing to me because where I live we have different laws and practices so it was really confusing for me to see how this case was interpreted by people in California. Any edits on my part are done in trying to find correct and accurate statements so that the article is factually correct-conforms to NPOV, and makes sense to readers. 24.0.133.234 (talk) 01:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

She was declared dead in accordance with the law in the state of California. A registered physician recorded a time of death and a judge of competent jurisdiction has ruled that to be correct. Therefore, it is well-sourced, specific and entirely accurate to note that Jahi McMath was declared dead. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I never said that she wasn't "declared" to be "dead". I could "declare" that you are dead-but without a diagnoses, it would just be a statement not a fact. My objection to "declared" is that in this instance it is a WP:WEASEL 24.0.133.234 (talk) 02:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC), that it implies that Mcmath was permanently clinically dead when she absolutely was not-and that the article and WP users could be better served by changing it to the more correct "diagnosed". Again I have to ask--you have accused me of having a biased agenda here and i would like to know what biased agenda I am being accused-of trying to promote? That she wasn't clinically dead when she was "declared" to be legally dead? That isn't a bias-that is a fact.24.0.133.234 (talk) 02:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not a "weasel word" - it is the specific, accurate and correct word. She was declared dead under California law. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is a and unless there is a good reason why the word should not be changed, I have a mind to do just this---> in the article. "Declarations" of death have already been discussed here as being confused with Declared death in absentia i think. That the media used the word, "declared dead"-in headlines and subtitles mainly, is not a quotable reference, per se since we would only be "quoting" the words used by the media to describe the events. Did anyone say specifically, "I declare, Mcmath is brain dead"-No. But we do have ref. and cites where the "diagnoses" of brain death according to California and hospital policy law was made. And I further accuse "declared" brain dead being used in the article in the context where it is being used to be a non seq. and intentionally at this point misleading double-speak of some kind-why would there be an argument about changing it to "diagnosed"? Also in the previously mentioned WP:WEASEL section, please note that "declaration" is highlighted as an EXAMPLE of a ww.24.0.133.234 (talk) 04:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

24.0.133.234, did you learn nothing from the RFC I wrote about your behavior? Consensus on the talk page has been consistently against your viewpoints since this article was first created. You need to let this go. Funcrunch (talk) 04:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

What viewpoint are you referring to and I do not need to let this go how dare you24.0.133.234 (talk) 05:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Then you will probably end up blocked from editing the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is based on consensus, and there is a consensus that your proposed edits do not improve the article. You need to drop the stick. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Please stop directing comments about this topic at myself personally. The talk page of this article is not the place for your stupid games. Please stay on the topic of article improvements and the article on this page.24.0.133.234 (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I've just heard about this case and I thought I'd come in to drop in my views really because this IP user is very clearly pushing their agenda and opinions in the article. I'm all for having a NPOV and I think the lead in does a fine job of that at the moment as it explains the viewpoint of the parents and the hospital, but this user is making it very difficult by just adding in what they believe is right without citing sources. IP user, you keep saying that Jahi is not "clinically dead" but this does not make any sense. Her organs are only being kept running by mechanical ventilation and once she's taken off, her organs will stop running. She has already passed on, unfortunately. You can only die by one type of death - by brain death, by clinical death, or something else. You can't die by both. Of course, I could very well be mistaken and if so, please provide me with some sources that show me you can be brain dead but without being clinically dead at the same time. I would be supportive of you changing the introduction if you can provide sources of the Jahi McMath story where it explains that she is "clinically dead" and that she has "irreversible brain death", and that might seem more neutral. NPOV has to be backed up by sources. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Createastorm (talk • contribs) 18:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing your opinions here. One thing that stood-out is that you ask basically that Mcmath's condition in the present tense be provided, which right there is a problem for this article. Please notice that the article is about the legal case, which seems to have been dropped since Mcmath was moved-(reportedly to a hospital in NJ)---but even current reports are (in my opinion) really "iffy" and care has to be taken about the source because not much verified news about Mcmath or the case specifically has followed--------so for the purpose of the article most reference to Mcmath's condition is how she was described upon release from the Children's hospital and while the case was active. That Mcmath was diagnosed with brain death has not been disputed as there are many references on the talk page and in the article that verify that fact. She was not diagnosed with permanent clinical death at any point, unless there is a challenge to the definition of clinical death? I would not challenge the term permanent "cardiac death" being used as a substitute for clinical death if use of clinical death is controversial or too confusing for the article. But the fact is that although she was diagnosed with an irreversible loss of consciousness,-brain death, her physical body was able to be maintained in a living condition.

As for providing examples-that has been done already, on this page and elsewhere. Healing wounds, growing hair, in children-growth and other examples should be convincing evidence that a body is alive, so I don't know exactly what you are looking-for? Your Q:"provide me with some sources that show me you can be brain dead but without being clinically dead at the same time"--um-Jahi Mcmath the subject of the case would be an example. She was clinically alive when she was released from the hospital. Did you check the linked article Clinical death?24.0.133.234 (talk) 19:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the two versions of the lede, #2 is more neutral. The distinction between "diagnosed" and "declared" brain dead has already been covered above (and as was previously discussed, "declared" is the usual usage and is what is found in RS). Of greater concern to me is this part: rejection of the medicolegal finding of irreversible, permanent brain death in this case, and their efforts to maintain her body on mechanical ventilation because she is not clinically dead and the hospital's efforts to terminate treatment.

First, as has also been previously discussed, brain death is by definition irreversible and so that adjective is not required. To include the adjective against the commonly-accepted definition makes the phrase non-neutral.

Second, to say in Wikipedia's voice that "she is not clinically dead" is POV-pushing and non-neutral because Wikipedia does not decide whether or not she's dead; we only report what reliable sources say, which is that she was declared dead and her family and their supporters believed otherwise.

Third, saying "the hospital's efforts to terminate treatment" does not accurately and fully state the issues at hand and so is, again, POV-pushing and non-neutral. The family attempted to force the hospital to provide mechanical ventilation and a feeding tube via legal means; this is a fundamental part of this case and is not reflected in the #1 version of the lede.

Per these three points, lede version #1 is not neutral and version #2 is preferred.

We've been over and over and over and over and over and over and over these same issues, 24.0.133.234, and consensus is against you. Please let this go. --Ca2james (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

So-adding an extra adjective where I think it should be added is "POV-pushing"----but then in your other point you say not ENOUGH extra-explanation is given. "does not accurately and fully state the issues at hand and so is, again, POV-pushing and non-neutral."...........I don't even know what to do with that. Your inconsistent application of whether or not "extra words" are allowed kind-of speaks for itself in my opinion.24.0.133.234 (talk)

Sometimes using extra words is POV-pushing and sometimes excluding words is POV-pushing; it always depends on the context. In other words, there's no hard-and-fast rule about whether extra words are POV. One thing you could do with that is to try to understand what I was saying with my points above instead of focusing on this red herring. --Ca2james (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I did not ask for the article to be provided in present tense and I don't know how you deduced that from my post. I just said you were pushing your agenda and opinions in the introduction.

She was not diagnosed as "clinically dead" because she died from brain death and you can only die from one death! That's how it works and that's why no articles has said she is not clinically dead as you state. In fact, I google Jahi McMath and clinically dead and nothing comes up! Her body is only in a "living condition" because it is attached to machines, this is the problem you have with your "clinical death" argument. If she were removed from machines, her organs would stop. She is not able to sustain her heartbeat, her breathing, etc by herself. Why? Because the brain does that. So she is dead! I don't question the definition of clinical death, as I understand it to be the cessation of the heart beating, as well as breathing and blood circulation, but I think you don't understand that it can't happen to someone who is already deceased. Did you read the Wikipedia page you gave me? It says in the introduction, At the onset of clinical death, consciousness is lost within several seconds. Measurable brain activity stops within 20 to 40 seconds.[. Jahi does not have brain activity and does not have consciousness, therefore she cannot undergo clinical death, which is something you admit. There is also a considerable amount on the brain that I won't publish here because it's huge, but it's about causing potential brain damage and even brain death. Yes, Jahi's heart will eventually stop, but it will be because it either wears out from the machines pumping it, or the machines are stopped. She has already passed on and won't pass on when her heart stops. Jahi is not in a coma, she can't come back. Just because her body can be maintained by machines, doesn't mean that she isn't dead and "cardiac death" is just as agenda pushing. By saying that she's not clinically dead I think you think she's alive, is that correct? Createastorm (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The logical idea that someone can "only die once"-does not apply to this article because it is about the case of Mcmath's family vs the Children's hospital but this doesn't even make sense..." (-death)I think you don't understand that it can't happen to someone who is already deceased." (you are RIGHT! I don't understand the incomprehensible,just twisting words and legally declaring crap does not change FACTS) For the purpose of the article-it really doesn't matter whether I think she is alive or not, that is my point. That there ARE two sides, and that the article should present each side without editor's opinions is my point. "cardiac death", "clinical death"....or any other correct way of phrasing the "not dead" POV for her condition, is better than editing-in confusing phrases like "her body was still alive and the hospital called her a "grotesque" decomposing corpse which was not true either because her body maintained and continued many life-functions, and the family legally prevented the hospital from terminating the life in her body." or other ways of phrasing the argument. If there are other correct ways of describing someone who is not-"all the way dead" that would help readers understand the problems with the case, I don't have problems with that either-but the article is no place to argue the points of the case. Making the side of the family look like the minority opinion, like some fringe, ignorant opinions is also something that does NOT belong in the article. Their side was that they had a child diagnosed with brain death who was still "technically" alive and they wanted to prevent the death of her physical body. It doesn't matter if consensus on Wikipedia declares that Mcmath is dead. That doesn't change the fact that she is not clinically dead. we need to leave our opinions out of it.24.0.133.234 (talk) 13:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

24.0.133.234, you say Making the side of the family look like the minority opinion, like some fringe, ignorant opinions is also something that does NOT belong in the article. Their side was that they had a child diagnosed with brain death who was still "technically" alive and they wanted to prevent the death of her physical body. It doesn't matter if consensus on Wikipedia declares that Mcmath is dead. That doesn't change the fact that she is not clinically dead. we need to leave our opinions out of it. You are correct that we all need to keep our opinions out of the article and focus on conveying what the reliable sources say. The family's view of McMath's state is the minority view in that they disagree with established medical consensus. This means that we don't present the family's view as the majority view as if it were the truth, or that we give their view the most weight in the article. Instead, we present the current consensus and describe how the family's perspectives differ. So we don't say that McMath is not clinically dead; we say that the family believes that she is not clinically dead.

This sort of thing is similar to what happens in pseudoscience articles, where the subject of the article does not align with majority expert opinion. In those cases, we don't say that the pseudoscience view is the right one, give it the most weight, or describe it as true in Wikipedia's voice. We specifically say it's the minority view. --Ca2james (talk) 18:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

It is not the opinion of the family that Mcmath is not clinically dead. It is a fact that she is-or to be more correct-was not at the time of the legal motions,...is/was not clinically dead. I think that leaving-OUT which side has the minority opinion would be NPOV, and I furthermore would disagree which side that would be if it were to be determined. Judgements like that are not our place here. I think that the article can work without lending undue weight to either side, and really you are just continuing to prove my point that the "dead"-side is asking that WP take your side. That's too bad because all that does is create further confusion for readers, because it does not define the difference between a corpse and a brain-dead person.24.0.133.234 (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

McMath is dead according to the majority opinion of the medical and legal professions because she is brain dead. Anyone that says that she is not dead is expressing a minority opinion. --Ca2james (talk) 20:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Can we leave the taking of sides out of it? (minority vs majority opinion). All that I am really trying to clarify in the article is that Mcmath was or is not a decomposing dead body. We keep going around about this, and I don't see how that is a matter of "opinion"-minority or not. I was really confused as a WP user when I 1st came to this article, and that was my major question, because I couldn't understand the case personally. As an editor I wanted to try and improve the reader experience and also try to make the article WP "worthy" as far as NPOV and factual. I came to the article as a confused person wanting to learn why there was a debate about whether she was dead or alive and the many implied and explicit references that did not differentiate between someone who is brain dead and someone who is a decomposing corpse. I also was curious at that point about if it is possible for someone who is brain-dead and on life-support, for their body to expire, or for their body to cease functioning beyond the point of being able to get their heart started (and presumably the natural process of decomposition). (the answer to that is yes but Jahi Mcmath was not in that state). I really don't know why trying to help make this article more understandable to users who may have those same ?s is a problem.24.0.133.234 (talk) 01:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem is we simply report what the reliable sources report. We do not add our own commentary about "clinically dead". While your intentions are good, we have to work within the framework of Wikipedia guidelines and policies. It is clear that your (IP 24's) preferred version has no consensus, and we need to move on from this suggestion (see WP:STICK). Yobol (talk) 02:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't even know which edit you are talking about. Using the term Clinical death in the article is well within editing pillars and the concept was one side of the court case-(that she was NOT clinically dead).-commentary?-I agree that should not be in the article and if I tried to edit that in I would have no problem with rv there. Same goes with WP:BIAS like, "her family refused to accept that she was dead". the NPOV way of stating that is to be precise, "her family did not accept terminating treatment which would cause permanent cardiac death" or "the family maintained that as her body was still living, they wanted to continue treatment"

How about my attempted edit exchanging the word "diagnosed" with "declared" (with brain death)? Why did that have to be a knock-down drag-out debate? Seriously, I made that edit for what I thought was a good reason, (still do), yet that edit was rv to the one that is inferior imo with no good reason. As a matter of fact to avoid copyright violations, using the correct words to describe what is being referenced, without using the exact wording of a ref. is strongly encouraged here or so I thought? Now you are telling me that we should use the exact words that are used in a reference without quotations? That's what it sounds like to me.24.0.133.234 (talk) 03:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)24.0.133.234 (talk) 03:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

As none of the sources we have discuss "clinical death", that is WP:OR on your part to include. We use "declared" because that is what the words our sources use. Saying we have to use "diagnosed" to avoid a copyright violation is remarkably unconvincing, as common phrases "declared brain dead" or any similar wording cannot be possibly construed as copyright violations. As you seem to be unable to drop the stick, I encourage everyone to avoid prolonging this discussion with further responses, as I unfortunately have contributed to. Yobol (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Yobol-What? ALL of the sources discuss that Mcmath is not clinically dead! "Declared" and "diagnosed' were BOTH used in the sources...your statement that editors should use, "declared" because that is what sources say, is EXACTLY what I mean by Copyvio! Not that in this case it would be a copyvio for either but maybe the words should have quote-marks, but your insistence that editors use the EXACT WORDS generally that are used in sources IS encouraging copyvio imo. Of course I'll respond to statements like the ones you make here because you really are not making sense24.0.133.234 (talk) 12:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

"encourage everyone to avoid prolonging this discussion with further responses" great idea. CombatWombat42 (talk) 04:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

infobox

I added an infobox. If anyone has a different preferred infobox please discuss. If anyone knows if or how it would be possible to collapse the infobox parameters on the edit-view, that would be good too. For reference for anyone who is interested in filling-out the infobox, here is the page that describes the parameters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_California_Supreme_Court_case 24.0.133.234 (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

"moves on command" video in external links

I think these vids belong in external links because apparently they are the crux of Dolan's appeal. Personally, I find potential evidence from MRI's much more compelling because vids could catch reflex at convenient time or be edited, but the videos are what media has been stressing, so it seems due weight to have them as external link.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The videos are linked and discussed in reference #10 so they're in the article. We're not writing this article to convince people that she can move; we're writing it to convey the facts of the case. Until the hearing has been decided, emphasizing the videos in the article by including them in the external links violates NPOV. Per WP:ELBURDEN, [d]isputed links should normally be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them; I dispute the inclusion of this link so I will remove it. Ca2james (talk) 23:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I actually do not think the videos "convince people she can move". That she can move (at least reflex movement) was not debated by either side back in January, but rather, I think those videos add context to Dolan's claim she can "move on command". Viewers can see for themselves what he is basing that claim on. Also, Ca2james, your most recent removal of that external link actually puts you in violation of the 3RR rule (you reverted to remove press conference link once and then reverted to remove "moves on command" link 3 times). We've been editing together on this article for a while, and I have not known you to be an edit warrior, so I assume it was just an oversight.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I apologize; I didn't think that removing the press link counted as a revert but having checked I see that it does. Thank you for pointing this out to me. This was an oversight and I've self-reverted. I do still dispute including the video as an external link at this time and per WP:ELBURDEN, it should be removed but I can't/won't do that until tomorrow. Note that I'm not saying the link should stay out forever - right now things are in flux and that video hasn't been assessed or certified or shown to be real, so including it before the hearing is premature. Why not put the link in as a reference instead? Ca2james (talk) 00:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

No problem regarding the 3RR thing. I actually got in trouble myself for that once regarding not being aware of what counted as a revert, on an article where 1RR rules applied, so it's a good thing to be aware of. Regarding the disputed videos, I honestly don't understand the problem with that external link. The videos are not actually included in any of the references currently in the article, but the videos are very stressed in the RS. It seems like due weight to include the videos and I think they clarify the article text where Dolan says he has video of Jahi "moving on command". Reading that text could mean different things to different people and seeing the video clarifies exactly what Dolan is talking about. I imagine some people would think she is moving on command while others would think that is just reflex movement caught on film. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The videos are linked in ref 10 - even so, I'd have no objection to this direct link to the videos being a reference to one or another of the statements about this latest hearing instead of as an external link. Thoughts? Ca2james (talk) 02:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I actually think it seems less neutral to have article text of Dolan saying he has videos of Jahi moving on command, without linking the videos, because I think most people would imagine something more obviously "on command" than these videos. I guess we could just add it as another ref, but I suspect a lot of readers are not that sophisticated regarding checking wikipedia references.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Although a reader would be able to find the videos that are mentioned by following the references already in the article, I do think that they are something that readers who are interested in the topic will be curious to see for themselves. The videos, the MRI, and the EEG are all in the press conference link, but it is really long. I think a link to the videos would make the article more useful for readers.68.37.28.172 (talk) 12:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@68.37.28.172: the press conference link can't be included per WP:ELNO point 8 because it uses flash. Moreover, including only one of the many, many press conferences that have been held is WP:UNDUE. After all, this isn't a news site, it's an encyclopaedia article. Per WP:ELBURDEN, the link to the press conference needs to be removed because I'm disputing its presence; please can you do this. Thanks.

About the videos, my thinking is that if readers are curious about the videos, they can find them via the references and I really don't see the need for including a separate link to a news blog article in external links. However, I accept that my thinking is affected by my own biases regarding the way I use references and that the link does no harm in External Links. So, since the news blog video article appears to conform to WP:ELMAYBE point 4, I give up. I no longer dispute the link's inclusion in External Links and will leave it in (at least for now - as the situation changes, so might my opinion... but that's always true, right?). Thanks for your patience. ~~One thing, though - can we change the link text to include the full title of the linked article?~~ There was an error in the syntax which made for an incorrect link and that truncated the title - fixed. Ca2james (talk) 14:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC) updated Ca2james (talk) 19:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

"Normally to be avoided"-I think is the key phrase there for external links, but for the sake that it is bugging you so much-and to maintain conformity with external link guidelines-fine, there is room elsewhere in the article for the ref.68.37.28.172 (talk) 00:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

new section added to article

"Commentary". Could be changed to Opinions or whatever, but I am worried about adding to it since it could become a WP:COATRACK? and removed. Before that happens, should we have a section for commentary and opinions?68.37.28.172 (talk) 22:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

My personal take on it is we don't need a commentary section, and that life support was thought of and described as "death support" in this case actually seems a significant part of the background of the case, so it could just stay in the background section where it previously was.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Well I disagree and there was other opinion and commentary that I added along with that "death support" statement that was removed. Maybe as a sub-section of background if that is possible? And that may work better for the case article to leave the commentary and opinion pre-being declared alive again action in background section? But still-if you are opening the door to one opinion or comment what reason is there for not allowing others?68.37.28.172 (talk) 23:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

One reason for not allowing the other comments you added is that those comments were unsourced and not NPOV. We don't know and we cannot assume that she'll be declared alive again. I don't think a commentary section is at all that necessary at this point because there just isn't that enough commentary. I agree with BoboMeowCat that the statement is part of the background of this case and that it should go there. Ca2james (talk) 00:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh please-the term, "death support" is what is NPOV. It is pejorative and insulting to every side in the case. (there is no such thing of course)I'm sure that I can find ref. to "maybe these doctors don't know as much about brain-death as they should"?-comment with reliable source to balance that out, but "death support" is silly and does not belong unchallenged in the article68.37.28.172 (talk) 03:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Petitioning court for reversal of diagnoses-Article needs new section?

I'm just going to put this La Times link here for now since apparently there is a court hearing for next Thursday and this is ongoing, although Judge Grillo has said that the family really needs to get ahold of the Department of Health to change Jahi's status from "dead" to "alive" (and that it has never been done before in California). I saw the press conference and this article covers most of the major points-http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-medical-experts-jahi-mcmath-20141002-story.html This is a pretty exciting update to Mcmath's story, and there are STILL different "sides" claiming that each side has their own agenda, there is a sentence at the end of the article but I think recent events need a section.24.0.133.234 (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Part of WP:NPOV is ensuring that everything in the article receives due WP:WEIGHT. At this point a separate section isn't needed because there really isn't much in the way of independent WP:RS coverage of this hearing, so introducing a section for this material would be WP:UNDUE. If a whole bunch of independent RS all over the place discuss the judge's ruling of the hearing (along with the inevitable appeals), then it might be appropriate to think about introducing a new section to discuss all that. Ca2james (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I actually think this new material might better fit in the existing Legal Action section, rather than in the Aftermath section. Funcrunch (talk) 21:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that I would agree that the upcoming legal actions would go better in the legal section. But yes I also agree that it would be better to wait 'till at least after the Oct. 9th hearing, but I think that there may be so much new material that it may be better to give it a new section or sub-heading? The press conference on Friday was widely covered in the media btw, but we should definitely have more to work with next week. At least we should have an answer to some of the questions raised here about the validity of a death certificate?68.37.28.172 (talk) 00:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC) Off-topic but just noticed OH nooooo I have a new static IP! I was working towards 2000 edits! Anyone who can point me into the right direction to merge with my account could help please!68.37.28.172 (talk) 00:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

While eventually putting it all in the Legal section makes sense, I think that will require significant restructuring of the article because it might not make sense to have the information about Jahi's transfer out of Children's Hospital & the Schiavo award etc come after the information on this appeal. I think it will help readers if we can somehow keep the article in chronological order as much as possible.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed that chronological order should be a priority. 68.37.28.172 (talk) 14:01, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Question about a new quote

I've added secondary sources for the statements previously only sourced by the primary court docs. Where the article previously said that Dr Byrne didn't believe in brain death, I found this quote saying that Dr. Byrne is neither a neurologist nor a California physician, is not qualified and has already taken a position on this matter. Interestingly, this quote appeared in early versions of this article which took it out later. I found the quote in another article. Anyways, I'm not sure that it's really needed in the article. Thoughts? Ca2james (talk) 01:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Well-the part about not being a California physician, I think that we have to be careful with that because he isn't from California, but that doesn't mean that he is NOT a physician or a Dr, just that he was not "Californian". Using an out-of-context quote in the article, without being clear about that would be purposely misleading68.37.28.172 (talk) 02:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand. The quote is actually quoted in the news article as something the hospital said, verbatim. In other words, the hospital said he wasn't a California physician, and this was part of the reason the hospital objected to him being appointed to do the tests. Ca2james (talk) 03:00, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Right because they wanted a "Californian"-therefore he is not licensed in California but somewhere else. That is why he was disqualified and you are correct they also objected because he had written a "not dead" article or had already taken a side.68.37.28.172 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

So-using a quote like that evades the mention that Dr Brynes is a licensed physician wherever it is he practices medicine by implying that he is "not qualified" when it is a geographical disqualification.68.37.28.172 (talk) 03:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

here is some of his CV from a NPOV source, http://health.usnews.com/doctors/paul-byrne-212262 68.37.28.172 (talk) 03:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Here are some of Dr Bryne's qualifications from a not NPOV (biased-but that does not mean that everything they say is untrue http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/byrne) source: "Dr. Paul A. Byrne is a Board Certified Neonatologist and Pediatrician. He is the Founder of the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit at SSM Cardinal Glennon Children's Medical Center in St. Louis, MO. He is Clinical Professor of Pediatrics at University of Toledo, College of Medicine. He is a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics and Fellowship of Catholic Scholars.Dr. Byrne is past-President of the Catholic Medical Association (USA), formerly Clinical Professor of Pediatrics at St. Louis University in St. Louis, MO and Creighton University in Omaha, NE. He was Professor of Pediatrics and Chairman of the Pediatric Depa"68.37.28.172 (talk) 03:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

BoboMeowCat already deleted the quote and I'm happy to leave it out. Ca2james (talk) 12:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank-you Ca2james. I know that we have new information about the case to work with, but I'm starting to get too nervous about WP:Coatrack and bloating-up the article with too much information before we even have any news about the new legal action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.28.172 (talk) 14:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

reflexive movements tend to end within 72 hours of brain death

68.37.28.172 noted that a ref already included in the article to support reflexive movements are not uncommon in brain death, actually says they tend to end within 72 after brain death. This was in the court documents. I edited this addition to make it flow better in the paragraph and verified that it is in the ref, but I'm concerned keeping this statement regarding movements ending within 72 hours might constitute original research, considering I recall no media outlets noticing this inconsistency and reporting upon it regarding this case. Maybe the best approach is to delete the entire response from the hospital regarding reflexive movements, or maybe we can keep all of it, considering this is in the legal action section, and this info is in the court documents. Thoughts? --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I actually just tweaked the sentence because the reference doesn't actually support the added statement since it's referring to a single study cited in the paper. A better reference is in the Discussion section on page 37 of the same document, which says Most reported brain stem-associated reflexes are no longer present 72 hours after brain death declaration. The meaning is a bit different from movements tend to end within 72 hours of brain death; it's actually saying most movements end within 72 hours of brain death which a subtle but important difference. I've changed the text accordingly.

The whole statement relies on a primary source that doesn't appear to have been discussed in secondary sources. Per WP:PRIMARY, A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. In this case I think the facts aren't all that straightforward - especially since the paper doesn't take into account a brain-dead person kept on so-called life-support for months. Therefore, I think unless there's a secondary source discussing this, it should be removed. Ca2james (talk) 15:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking more about this and I've concluded that cherrypicking this fact out of the filing and including it in the article is WP:OR and possibly WP:NPOV. I'm going to remove it. Ca2james (talk) 19:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

OK-here's the thing-the added info. from the already-cited ref was a continuation of something about how those spontaneous movements happen in brain death regularly. Is WP in the business of providing misleading info. by citing out-of-context? I was trying to repair the out-of-context, misleading article text, because it does not apply to Mcmath as she has been diagnosed with brain death for far-longer that 72 hours, and yeah I will have a prob. with this one although I don't have a prob how or where the info is included, if the "spontaneous movements" are mentioned, this should be cited as well.68.37.28.172 (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

If you think this bit of info should be included, find an appropriate secondary source that discusses it in the context of this case. Picking that one item out of the court documents is OR. Ca2james (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Well if that further context from the cite that was ALREADY BEING USED TO PROVE A POINT in the article is rm, then it would only be right to rm the misleading article text. IE: from "Byrne stated in court documents that he witnessed McMath move in the hospital and that he considered her to be alive.[34] The hospital stated that it would be unethical and "grotesque" to require the hospital and its doctors to provide further medical care to a dead body and referred to Byrne as an "ideologue" who does not accept the concept of brain death. The hospital further stated that reflexive movements are not uncommon in cases of brain death; however, the research provided to support this suggests that most reflexive movements end within 72 hours of brain death.[25]" to "Byrne stated in court documents that he witnessed McMath move in the hospital and that he considered her to be alive.[34] The hospital stated that it would be unethical and "grotesque" to require the hospital and its doctors to provide further medical care to a dead body and referred to Byrne as an "ideologue" who does not accept the concept of brain death. The hospital further stated that reflexive movements are not uncommon in cases of brain death; however, the research provided to support this suggests that most reflexive movements end within 72 hours of brain death.[25]" don't ONLY remove the "72 hours" part please. That would be wrong68.37.28.172 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

IP's objection to deleting info that supports one side from that source, while keeping info that supports other side seems perhaps valid under WP:CHERRYPICKING. With Ca2James tweak to add most, I'm ok to leave all of it, or else delete all of it to avoid cherrypicking. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Also-and I'm confused here-would a cite with the medical journal that was actually used as evidence be "appropriate"? Meaning it already is a secondary kind-of? I like it how it is right now since it is applied directly to Mcmath, and Primary docs are not always a no no. Also after reading the docs. I'm really surprised that the hospital was using that for THEIR side of the argument, so much contradictions.68.37.28.172 (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

It isn't our place to interpret the evidence the hospital submits; we're here to report what the reliable sources say. That said, we shouldn't even be using primary sources like filing documents because that calls for interpretation, which is WP:OR and including the "however" in the added text is WP:SYNTH.

My proposal, therefore, is this: find secondary sources to support the statements that this source is supporting and include those instead. I've found one supporting the "grotesque" statement, and I'll see what I can find regarding what the hospital said about reflexive movements. If there's a reliable source saying that the hospital said that, it stays in. If there's a reliable source talking about their evidence being contradictory, then it can be included; otherwise, it's deleted. Ca2james (talk) 23:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Re-sourcing would probably help here since it does seem to be the primary doc. causing the problem. We still have the docs. available to users in the case-box I think. As far as "cherry-picking", since I have to agree that outside of the primary doc., the "72 hours-no movement seen in the brain-dead", even using the source there-(a medical journal)--I agree that it would be OR and SYNTH, so I am reserving the option to call for using the primary source to balance WP:UNDUE if "spontaneous movement happens all of the time in brain dead people" happens in the article.68.37.28.172 (talk) 23:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree that replacing with secondary sources seems a good solution here.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

There are several secondary sources where Singer, the hospital spokesperson, says that the "Lazarus sign" (aka involuntary movements) are normal: Singer said the hospital has not been authorized by the family to comment on Jahi's medical condition but that in similar cases patients deemed brain-dead can show movement via a phenomenon called the Lazarus reflex or Lazarus sign.[2] (this will necessitate some slight re-working of the article text).

I've been looking for secondary references that discuss this case that also discuss the 72-hour timeline and I can't find anything and if nothing can be found, we can't include the 72-hour stuff chosen from this one primary source. Per WP:BALASPS, An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news (emphasis added). So although the 72-hour stuff exists in the primary source, it's an isolated fact that would be disproportionate in the article because it's not mentioned in any secondary sources anywhere that discuss this case, and therefore it must be excluded. Ca2james (talk) 23:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

There are a wealth of clearly biased secondary sources which I think we have been doing a great job of not including in this article. If it were a choice between using a primary document that is connected to this case, I would not want to be the one to introduce any of the biased secondary sources into the article, and I think that a primary source would be better, but if it came down to it we could always add a bias tag using a biased source. The case docs., and that ref. that incl. the bit about spontaneous movements in brain dead people stopping after 72 hours is more noteworthy to the case than other refs. imo, and even as a stand-alone ref, cited as a med journal ref, it just makes more sense with this article imo.68.37.28.172 (talk) 13:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

No, we can't just "add a bias tag using a biased source" - bias tags are indicative of bias that needs to be made NPOV. WP:BIASED secondary sources are allowed as long as the article is neutral. As I said above, including the 72-hour bit is inappropriate per WP:BALASPS. We need secondary sources to tell us what's important and what's not important about this case; picking and choosing facts out of a primary source is WP:UNDUE and WP:OR. Ca2james (talk) 19:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Postponement vs withdrawal

@KZCRNA: the court document for the recent hearing is a primary source and using that source to state that the media are incorrectly characterizing the outcome of the hearing is WP:OR. It isn't our job to interpret court documents, and (as BoboMeowCat pointed out in an edit summary) it also isn't our job to correct the media's interpretation of court documents. We report what reliable sources say and if they say that the hearing has been postponed, that's what the article says. Any kind of statement that the media is reporting the outcome incorrectly must be backed by reliable secondary sources. Ca2james (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I understand, and that makes sense. Can the link be posted that states the Alameda County Superior Court Register of Actions lists an order granting the withdrawal of the petition? That is objectively factual data. I am new to editing wiki, so have much to learn. KZCRNA — Preceding unsigned comment added by KZCRNA (talk • contribs) 16:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! Before deciding whether or not to add the document, we need to be able to review it. However, I get a "file not found" error when I try to access the link you provided for the docs. Could you please verify the link? Thanks! Ca2james (talk) 17:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Re-Assessment

So I went ahead and re-assessed based on my understanding of assessment guidelines for the Death Portal. (from "start-class to "B", and "low-importance" to "mid-importance")---feel free to tell me that I did that wrong, or what should be done to have the portal assessments reflect the current status(s) of the article more correctly. I think there is some work that could be done with this, and this article is looking really good to me right now but I could be wrong about that because maybe I have looked at it too much.68.37.28.172 (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for reassessing the article. I agree that this is a B-class article. However, I disagree with the importance assessment. I'm not sure that this article "contributes a depth of knowledge" to the subject of death, at least at present. If she were to be determined by neutral, third=party experts to be not dead, then this would be a groundbreaking case. Right now it's just sad and shows the length to which someone's grief can take them; there's no deeper discussion of brain-death going on and this case isn't going to affect the larger issue of brain-death (except, perhaps, for some hospitals, which maybe changing some guidelines around dealing with families - but none of that makes the news). So I'd rate this article as Low-importance, "Subject fills in important details." Ca2james (talk) 23:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I actually think an unprecedented request to have brain death declaration reversed seems significant in terms of brain death laws, no matter how the case turns out.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The case was withdrawn by Dolan and there's no date to hear it so it's dead in the water at the moment. Until it's actually heard and judged in court, it isn't a significant event in terms of brain death. Let's not get ahead of the events. Ca2james (talk) 17:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

According to most RS, it was postponed (but it does seem like it was technically withdrawn with intent to reschedule) but, nothing in RS makes it sound like case is just going to go away and end now. I think no matter how it turns out, it is fairly significant at this point. Just added this ref to article that discusses the potential significance of case: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/nation_world/20141023_Teen_s_case_adds_to_debate_over_brain_death.html Just added it to "Aftermath" section, as it covers the recent developments already in the article, but might also be useful for additional content in commentary section.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the article. Dolan said that the case was postponed for four weeks but the court documents (and those reliable sources that reflect them instead of relying on Dolan's words) show that Dolan withdrew the case and there's no next hearing scheduled. No one knows what's going to happen next, or if anything will happen. There aren't that many articles discussing this case or its impact on brain death; while it's definitely raised the profile of brain death, we're not at a tipping point yet. We could always ask Project Death to assess the article if we can't agree on the assessment. Not that the assessment actually matters all that much - they're not always accurate and they probably don't even matter unless the article is GA or FA. Ca2james (talk) 02:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank-you for explaining that, and i agree that the article does not contribute importantly to the subject of death. I misunderstood and related "importance" to the topic of the article-(Mcmath case)--not the death portal.68.37.28.172 (talk) 13:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Update lawsuit

So I updated with info about the lawsuit. I have not been able to find the court docs-(primary ref. I know, but for the case-info-box). Feel free to tidy-up my sentences there or add more info.(my IP changed but this is your IP friend here) ;)2601:C:67C0:F8:445E:C7CC:A0E3:5D25 (talk) 13:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Also note that I added the lawyer's name and link. Not as an ad or endorsement but because it is a different lawyer than the other one-(Dolan), and it confirms statements that a case has been filed, and it may help readers/users who are researching the case to have the new lawyer's name. Apparently this lawyer recently completed a similar case against Children's hospital, but I don't know if that applies to this article, probably not at this point-but maybe? Also there was some random FaceBook chatter that there may have been a statute of limitations time concern, but I was not able to verify that either.2601:C:67C0:F8:445E:C7CC:A0E3:5D25 (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello again IP friend! I'd ping you but I don't know what your address will be this time. The malpractice lawyer did file a similar case but I think that would be better in an article about him, if he ends up independently notable somehow. I also seem to remember that there was something about a statute of limitations but I haven't seen that in any of the reports. Ca2james (talk) 01:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

In regards to Brain Death

It might be worth noting the long term effects of brain death on the brain, and the counter argument which the parents have made. I don't have the argument on hand, but remember seeing it in an article where they noted that a CT scan of the girl's cranium didn't show the expected result. That expected result being that the brain would have liquified due to necrosis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.190.40.1 (talk) 10:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)