malf
Member
Did you read the interview that Typoz linked?Yes, but what is correct (information) and what is not correct, is important on a public forum. Death is of course a process but that process begins when the heart stops pumping and circulation/respiratory effort ceases. That person is then dead and is described as being dead my medical professionals in medical facilities. This is simply a fact and facts need to be acknowledged, No ?
If a patient is found lying in a hospital bed with no heartbeat, pulse etc, medics don't describe the patient as being not quite dead or nearly dead. They don't say... this patient is in the process of dying. They say Shit ! this patient is dead, get the crash cart quick and all hell breaks loose. The reason why some posters on here keep playing with semantics is because it suits their theories to do so. So no I can't agree with you that it's an arbitrary choice. Thanks for your input anyway.
http://www.spiegel.de/international...ection-is-a-medical-possibility-a-913075.html
Sticking to a rigid definition of death is silly and outdated in the light of recent research. Clearly there are processes that start and up to a certain point this processes can be stopped and patients revived. Understanding the process is important. Nobody tries to revive someone with rigor mortis, for example.
(Cue someone finding a link to someone with rigor mortis reviving :D. If anyone finds one I guarantee it will be poorly documented)