Heart attack baby back from dead

[Sdashiki]

I think I spent 8 years of my life studying Biomed Science and Medicine so don't tell me to educate myself.

I don't think you should be preaching your mantra, contradicting the opinions of doctors and health professionals on the matter.

Believe what you wish. I won't waste my time educating you. It is much more complicated than 'common sense'.

David

yeah, ok. glad you feel better now.

who contradicted anything? all i said, and anyone agreed with, was that it remains to be seen whether this child is going to have a mental handicap. all signs point to yes, just from the standpoint of "being dead for 30 minutes".

if you have information, share it, dont act all high and mighty holding onto your info. asking me to prove myself, when you offer no contradiction other than your own ego, gets us nowhere.

 

[davidjearly]

Educate yourself on brain biology. I dont feel its my responsibility to teach you something I personally believe is common sense:

No oxygen = dead brain tissue

if the baby was "dead" for more than 6 minutes, there is brain damage. to what extent, remains to be seen.

just cuz you dont know why, doesnt make it any less true.

BTW, I presume by 'brain biology', you actually mean 'neurology'? We're a little further advanced here than high school biology. At this level it becomes physiology.

 

[Sdashiki]

BTW, I presume by 'brain biology', you actually mean 'neurology'? We're a little further advanced here than high school biology. At this level it becomes physiology.

thats it, im done.

for someone who talks about semantics ruining a discussion, you take the cake.

brain biology vs brain neurology is splitting hairs, you knew damn well what I meant, and I doubt i looked any less educated because of my chose of words.

 

[Lau]

I doubt i looked any less educated because of my chose of words.

Did you mean "choice"?

 

[miloblithe]

You didn't finish your statement?

Meanwhile, while we're actually alive, you've sacrificed an ability to understand the world around you. And if there is an afterlife, I'd be more impressed with a god who's more concerned about people trying to do right by their fellow man than one who's pathalogically obsessed about people worshipping him.

 

[Sdashiki]

Did you mean "choice"?

LoL!

you got me, im in my high school computer class and I duna no how to spel

 

[budpam]

On the contrary

Meanwhile, while we're actually alive, you've sacrificed an ability to understand the world around you. And if there is an afterlife, I'd be more impressed with a god who's more concerned about people trying to do right by their fellow man than one who's pathalogically obsessed about people worshipping him.

That's funny. Faith somehow prohibits you from understanding the world around you? Actually it helps you understand the world around you. There is an afterlife, and God doesn't need you to be impressed with Him-even though He is very concerned with "doing right" by your fellow man(ie. Ten Commandments and Jesus saying "Love your neighbor as yourself").
Yes, He wants your worship-just as you want those you care about to love you. Ultimately, faith in Jesus allows you to love people that would otherwise be your enemy. That's true freedom.

 

[Queso]

Meanwhile, while we're actually alive, you've sacrificed an ability to understand the world around you. And if there is an afterlife, I'd be more impressed with a god who's more concerned about people trying to do right by their fellow man than one who's pathalogically obsessed about people worshipping him.

That's funny. Faith somehow prohibits you from understanding the world around you? Actually it helps you understand the world around you. There is an afterlife, and God doesn't need you to be impressed with Him-even though He is very concerned with "doing right" by your fellow man(ie. Ten Commandments and Jesus saying "Love your neighbor as yourself").
Yes, He wants your worship-just as you want those you care about to love you. Ultimately, faith in Jesus allows you to love people that would otherwise be your enemy. That's true freedom.

OK Chaps, this is Current Events. Put down the topic and step away with your hands up!!

 

[SuperCompu2]

I will put this train back on the tracks, and say that I'm always happy to see these little miracles of science happen. It gives you hope that if you or someone you know is in a similar situation, these things can actually happen, although rare.

I hope to hear an update on this one in a year or so. Good little article there.

 

[theBB]

I don't think you should be preaching your mantra, contradicting the opinions of doctors and health professionals on the matter.

The same hospital who said the baby was dead and there was not anything else to be done, now claims no brain damage. I don't think they have the best track record. Is it that outrageous to contradict them?

 

[nateDEEZY]

Oh God, I can't imagine the emotional roller coaster this put on there parents!

Rushing to the hospital because there child looked white and was cold, worried to death I imagine! Then being told by the doctors, 'Sorry we've done everything we can.' Then 30 minutes with-in the greaving process that they just lost there child! Then there child comes backs to life to only find out there is a possibility he could have severe brain damage… Then suffer hours of test to find out if the child's brain is okay… I mean that's pretty crazy, it's always wonderful to hear of miracles though!

 

[.Andy]

A baby having a heart attack? Amazing.

Not really. Anyone of any age can and do have a heart attack. It's just that colloquially people associate heart attacks with being overweight and old. Heart attack is a broad term that covers a large array of cardiac events - in this case thrombosis in the aorta.

Educate yourself on brain biology. I dont feel its my responsibility to teach you something I personally believe is common sense:

No oxygen = dead brain tissue

if the baby was "dead" for more than 6 minutes, there is brain damage. to what extent, remains to be seen.

just cuz you dont know why, doesn't make it any less true.

The article mentions that they resuscitated the baby the whole 30 mins. That would have meant immediate ventilation (i.e. oxygen) for that entire period. It's possible that the baby (or adult) might have brain damage following that time but it's by no means not a foregone conclusion. If they managed to maintain adequate circulation during that time a positive outcome is certainly possible. Unfortunately it's a newspaper article designed to grab eyes for ad revenue and not a comprehensive case study. It's common sense not to make a concrete diagnosis based on incomplete information.

The same hospital who said the baby was dead and there was not anything else to be done, now claims no brain damage. I don't think they have the best track record. Is it that outrageous to contradict them?

The hospital kept up resuscitation for that time and managed to get the babies heart started again when presented with the chance (i.e. they saved it's life). Without the initial rescus and getting the heart started the baby would be 100% dead. If indeed there is no brain damage it was also due to their intervention and good rescus. They also had the courage to admit that they had done everything possible - speaking from experience that's a really hard thing to do when you've got grieving parents/relatives there.

 

[solvs]

Science, God, who cares? It's good news. He could have brain damage, but he might not. We don't know yet, but it's not too stupid to at least wonder if he might have some negative side effects we haven't seen yet. Also not stupid to think he may be fine if he had a steady supply of oxygen to his system.

Geez you people are pissy lately.