Talk:Jahi McMath case

Opinions that Jahi McMath was not a dead body when she was transferred from Children's hospital

-type section, which would require a

Not sure how to proceed with new info

Hello everyone-this is IP again. So, I am in agreement that avoiding personal blogs for this is a good plan, BUT, there have been developments. Now, using reliable sources and mainly newspapers etc. would add and update the "news" part of this, and the back and forth about the arguments of the case(s), BUT-again, there is a blog that lays-out ALL of the cases. http://thaddeuspope.com/jahimcmath.html So.I looked for copyright info. there and could not find, so a "steal" wouldn't work, and I think taking it without credit isn't really right either. Unless anyone wants to painstakingly find updates in line with what we have already done,I propose something like, (new section) Further cases and legal actions and then (something like),"here's a link to Professor T.Pope's documentation re: cases"? or something about how there are now multiple cases moving-through the courts with the cite and ref directing to T Pope's page? What do you guys think about that?50.182.180.55 (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Kudos

Difficult case to present neutrally but you have done an excellent job. Avocats (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Confusing paragraph

Hi all,

There is this paragraph near the end of the section "Aftermath":

"After viewing over four dozen independent videos of the girl, Dr. Alan Shewmon, a UCLA pediatric neurologist, declared the girl technically alive in a June 29, 2017, court filing, affirming that the girl follows movement commands and exhibits other proof of life. However, Melinda Krigel, spokeswoman for the UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital, affirms equally strongly that the diagnosis of the pediatric neurologists who have seen the videotapes in question remains correct in 2017."

I've read through the section that this paragraph is in several times and I'm still confused about the sentence beginning with "However". Maybe I'm just missing something because there are so many people to keep track of, but I don't see why that sentence should start with "However". That transition word suggests that Krigel and "the pediatric neurologists who have seen the videotapes in question" have a different opinion from those of Shewmon, but I don't actually see anything about who those neurologists are or which side they're on... so it's like I can't "confirm" that the transition word "however" is actually correct.

tl;dr The sentence starting with "However" seems to have appeared out of the blue.

199.111.212.204 (talk) 02:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, that is strange. I think the USCF spokesperson is saying that pediatric neurologists had earlier diagnosed McMath as brain dead and confirmed that diagnosis after viewing the videos. Their confirmation that McMath is brain dead is in contrast to Shewson's declaration that McMath is technically alive. That said, the paragraph could be better written and I'd like to check what the sources say before I make any changes. Ca2james (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I've made a few changes and added a source to support the text. Let me know what you think. Ca2james (talk) 01:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Much clearer now. Thank you! 199.111.212.193 (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Not in citation given

There are 5 sources given for the proposition that the lawyer has withdrawn his motion to cancel the death certificate, but at least 2 of them don't actually say that. Citation 13 says it, but citations 10 and 12 don't. 71.163.138.159 (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)