To Pfusand on apologies
Zoe
>On May 23, 7:57 pm, Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On 22 May 2007 20:05:36 -0700, Pfusand <a...@szczesuil.com> wrote:
>>
>> >This is my second attempt at a Google Groups posting:
>>
>> >On May 22, 8:41 pm, Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> Let me try again. This is a hypothetical, so I dare you to think
>> >> outside your box and try to figure out what you would do if this
>> >> scenario were real.
>>
>> >> Hypothetical situation: You enter the door of a medical examiner's
>> >> work room where an autopsy is about to be performed. The patient has
>> >> been verified to have been dead for several days, and rigor mortis has
>> >> set in.
>>
>> >Oh, Zoe, you have no idea what you're talking about. Rigor will have
>> >passed off about a day after death.
>>
>> oh, Pfusand, you are easily derailed by trifling details. Address the
>> hypothetical and not the window dressings, if you can.
>
>I was not derailed; I attempted, in passing, to reduce your
>ignorance. Since I continued on at the very next word, you should
>have had enough intelligence to not write that I was "easily
>derailed."
>
>I therefore want an apology for that false statement, Zoe.
Pfusand, since meaning is in the eye of the beholder, what I
considered to be "derailed" you considered to be "on track." So I
can't apologize for not seeing life the same way that you do. But I
do apologize if my use of the word "derailed" offended your
sensibilities.
>
>> >> You examine the records and review the death certificate.
>>
>> >> Next, you observe as the medical examiner slices open the chest
>>
>> >Oh, Zoe, you have no idea what you're talking about. The death
>> >certificate is not issued until after the autopsy.
>>
>> the person had better be verified as truly dead (via a death
>> certificate) before any autopsy is performed.
>
>No, Zoe. You are wrong again. You are confusing the issuance of a
>death certificate with the pronouncment of death. (Consider: You
>know, or should know, that a death certificate lists the cause of
>death. How can it get there before the autopsy?)
you have a point there. I have not double checked you on this, but
take your word that you know what you are talking about, so choose to
stand corrected on this.
Actually, on second thought, I decided to double check you after all.
See:
http://www.healthcare.uiowa.edu/path_handbook/Appendix/AnatomicPath/AUTOPSY.HTML
"The death certificate must be signed by a physician within 24 hours
of the death."
My hypothetical stated that the body had been dead for several days.
So your "No, Zoe. You are wrong again..." needs to be retracted.
All this is not really important, though, is it, to the meat of the
hypothetical?
>> Autopsies aren't
>> performed on people who are not certified to be dead, are they? Are
>> you sure you got this bit of "window dressing" right? And can you
>> please return to the meat of the hypothetical, anyway?
>
>I never departed from the discussion of your hypothetical, Zoe.
>
>I therefore want an apology for your claim that I did.
okay, you have not departed from the discussion of my hypothetical,
Pfusand, so I apologize if that is the meaning you got from my "please
return to the meat of the hypothetical."
The meat.
>
>> >> of the
>> >> body and begins to dissect the heart,
>>
>> >Oh, Zoe, you have no idea what you're talking about. After the Y-
>> >incision is made, a *lot* of work is done before the heart is removed,
>> >weighed, examined, and then dissected.
>>
>> I skipped the "lot of work" because it would make this macabre
>> hypothetical too long and tedious.
>
>So you prefer making multiple, egregious errors, and then abusing
>people who try to explain reality to you. Well, we all knew that
>already.
for those guarded souls who consider "easily derailed" as abuse, I
apologize. Pfusand, I apologize for calling it as I saw it, and for
inadvertently mislabeling your reply, as you have pointed out and
corrected. I will try to use gentler words that will not ruffle your
sensitivities any further.
>
>> Now can you address the main
>> point?
>
>Since we had not yet reached it, Zoe, how could I?
you see now why we have not yet reached it?
>
>> >> but suddenly, there is an
>> >> interruption. A stranger walks into the room,
>>
>> >My goodness! What terrible security there is here! You'd think this
>> >was the set of a bad movie.
>>
>> it is the set of a bad hypothetical, apparently. Can you see past the
>> trappings and address the point?
>
>I did address it, as you know. So why do you insist on pointlessly
>trying to abuse and insult me and the other people who have done you
>the courtesy of responding politely to your "hypothetical"?
I apologize for abusing and insulting you, Pfusand, if it has come
across as abuse and insult. My responses did not come from a place of
intent to abuse and insult, but if you have been harmed in any way by
my phraseology, I apologize.
>
>> You observe something happen with
>> your own two peepers; do you distrust what you see, or do you
>> investigate further? Or does your core belief get in the way of any
>> further investigation?
>>
>> >> touches the cold, dead
>> >> body, and says authoritatively: "Young man, get up."
>>
>> >> Before your astonished eyes, the open chest closes back up, the
>> >> verifiably dead body regains color, the limbs relax, the eyes open,
>> >> and the person sits up on the examiner's table, with a startled look
>> >> on his face.
>>
>> >> If this scenario were to happen to you, what would your
>> >> conclusion be?
>>
>> >I see. You're asking us to go the Red Queen two better and believe
>> >five impossible things before breakfast.
>>
>> I am asking you to lighten up and think outside of your box. Can't
>> do?
>
>You *N*E*V*E*R* asked us to lighten up. That is a lie. I insist that
>you apologize for it.
note the tense of my request. "Asking." Not "asked." So of course
you are right. I never before now asked you to lighten up. But as of
this present post, I said, (present tense), "I am asking you."
Therefore, I cannot apologize for something I have never said.
Would you care to apologize for misrepresenting my "asking" to mean
"asked"?
That's okay, you don't have to. I am not insulted or feeling abused.
Just a bit mystified about your warrior attitude.
>
>> >My first assumption (based on the inconsistances that you have
>> >presented) would be that I was having a lucid dream.
>>
>> you pinch yourself. It is not a dream.
>>
>> > For me, the test
>> >would be if the "death certificate" read the same way on the second
>> >pass that it did on the first -- if I could even put my hands on it.
>>
>> ahh, a little bit of the scientific method creeps in -- just barely.
>
>I see you insist on putting in your insults even when there is no
>rational opportunity to do so.
you read that through the filter of your own mindset. I was not being
sarcastic, but you have to take my word for it.
>
>> >For others, taking off their glasses enables them to tell the
>> >difference between reality and an hallucination.
>>
>> >But I'm going to guess that you want this to be "real."
>>
>> yeah, let's pretend. That's allowable in my sandbox.
>>
>> >My second assumption would be that this is an elaborate set-up. This
>> >would be very hard to test; I've never been in a morgue. Even so, I
>> >think the smell would be distinctive. (It does, of course, require a
>> >small leap of faith to believe that a hoax would not be performed in
>> >an actual autopsy room, and so conclude that this event is "real.")
>>
>> >I'm going to guess that you are going to insist that I can (somehow)
>> >prove that no hoax has been perpetrated, although I am at a loss as to
>> >how this would happen.
>>
>> in this hypothetical world, you prove to your satisfaction that no
>> hoax has happened. What do you do with your data then?
>>
>> >Therefore, I would have to conclude that the stranger has the ability
>> >to, essentially, reverse entropy. Beyond that, I would draw no
>> >conclusions, because I don't have enough information (and because I
>> >read and still remember "It is white on this side, Jubal").
>>
>> you took a cautious step forward and pulled it back immediately. Water
>> too cold, too deep?
>
>All right, Zoe. You claim, right here, that I took a step back. I
>insist that you point out where I retreated.
okay, I read too hastily. You did not retreat. You merely stopped. I
apologize for that misstatement.
> It was my intention, and
>I believe I succeeded at it, to point out exactly how much of a
>conclusion I could come to despite the paucity of 'information' you
>put in your "hypothetical" situation. I reached that point, drew my
>line, and stood right there.
righto. Not sure where to place you then. Not in the "investigate
further" column, or in the "tricks, doubt senses" column. Maybe the
"dunno" column? Not that you should particularly care about what
happens in my little sandbox, I'm sure. You have much more important
things to think about.
>
>Are you afraid to admit that?
just did.
>> >> If this scenario were to happen to someone you know and trust, and
>> >> they told you about it, what would your conclusion be?
>>
>> >I would conclude that the case was my second assumption. (You did not
>> >specify that this trustworthy person was really, really smart.)
>>
>> oh, definitely, your trustworthy person is very very smart; that is
>> why you trust him/her.
>
>No, Zoe. MY ex-husband is really, really smart, and I wouldn't trust
>him one-tenth as far as I could throw him.
then he is not your trustworthy person, is he. Why bring him up? I
didn't.
>I need someone who is smart, knowledgable about sleight-of-hand and
>Hollywood modeling, and not gullible. I know lots of people with the
>first and last qualities, but I don't know anyone who also has *both*
>of the middle two qualities.
ahh, I see I can place you back in the "tricks, disbelief" column
after all. And you haven't stopped right there, either. You are now
considering looking for someone who knows about sleight-of-hand and
Hollywood modeling, rather than investigating the possibility that
entropy can be reversed at a higher level than any already known
reversals.
>By the way, Zoe, since you don't have all the necessary qualities, you
>can't vet anyone for me.
who did I vet? Your husband? You brought him up, you know, not me. I
simply said that, in the hypothetical, you had someone very
trustworthy that told you this. Hypothetically.
>
>> >Now, Zoe, it's my turn.
>>
>> >Suppose we were there together, and the stranger then turned and
>> >looked right at you, and said, "Zoe, you are an ignorant and
>> >ineffectual person. We will meet again. Before we do, you will have
>> >the opportunity to correct these flaws. You will be judged on the
>> >actions you take."
>>
>> >What would you do, Zoe?
>>
>> based on the hypothetical fact that this person can do something as
>> mind-boggling as restoring life, I would listen to him very carefully,
>> weigh his opinion of me very seriously, and make every effort I can to
>> correct my ignorance and ineffectuality before meeting him again.
>
>What would you *D*O*, Zoe?
please apologize for the yelling.
> What steps would you take?
step 1. I would listen to the person very carefully.
step 2. I would weigh his opinion of me very seriously.
step 3. I would make every effort to correct my ignorance and
ineffectuality.
> I don't want
>the vague hand-waving you just produced. I want a list of concrete
>activities. I want you to demonstrate a thought process.
the concrete activities would relate back to what I listened to from
the stranger...whatever he tells me is my shortcomings, I would work
on.
Or maybe your hypothetical was too vague so that I can't answer what I
would do about his vague charge of ignorance and ineffecutality?
Or was "ignorant and ineffectual" your way of "abusing" and
"insulting" me through your own vague hypothetical?
That's okay, I don't need or demand an apology. That's life on T.O.
snip>
Glenn
>
> "The death certificate must be signed by a physician within 24 hours
> of the death."
>
> My hypothetical stated that the body had been dead for several days.
> So your "No, Zoe. You are wrong again..." needs to be retracted.
>
> All this is not really important, though, is it, to the meat of the
> hypothetical?
>
> >> Autopsies aren't
> >> performed on people who are not certified to be dead, are they? Are
> >> you sure you got this bit of "window dressing" right? And can you
> >> please return to the meat of the hypothetical, anyway?
>
> >I never departed from the discussion of your hypothetical, Zoe.
>
> >I therefore want an apology for your claim that I did.
It's an attempt to victimize you, Zoe. Don't be battered. My advice is
to batter back, the equivalent of a bat will work just fine. The
poster is an idiot, thinking that death isn't pronounced until an
autopsy is performed. This shows the person to be either totally
ignorant of the subject and a troll or knowledgable about the subject
and a troll.
> snip>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Zoe
Pfusand <a...@szczesuil.com> wrote:
snip>
I hear you, Glenn, it's just that Pfusand's outbursts are so ...
well...so immature, if not disturbingly paranoid ... that I'd just
rather not join her on her level. I figured if I answered her with
kid gloves that she'd either prove herself a bigger person than she
appears to be, or slink away into the mists forever, unable to
acknowledge that she got her apologies. I'm rooting for the former.
Actually, I think I have too much time on my hands right now, why I
even bother to quibble with her.
snip>
Harry K
> On May 29, 9:28 am, Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> It's an attempt to victimize you, Zoe. Don't be battered. My advice is
> to batter back, the equivalent of a bat will work just fine. The
> poster is an idiot, thinking that death isn't pronounced until an
> autopsy is performed. This shows the person to be either totally
> ignorant of the subject and a troll or knowledgable about the subject
> and a troll.
>
>
>
<snip the whole idiotic thing>
To put a bit of sanity into both Glenn's and Zoe's ?reasoning? from a
person who was involved in Law Enforcement.
A death certicate is not signed until AFTER the autopsy. The official
pronouncement of death is made at the location of the death. The
announcement DOES NOT include the cause of death even if it is
obvious.
Scene: Car accident. Victim is decapitated. Meat wagon on scene
wants body but can't as coroner hasn't arrived. Coroner arrives:
"Yep, he's dead, you can take him away". Later, AFTER THE AUTOPSY
coroner signs death certicate stating in whatever officical terms are
required that he died due to decapitation.
Pfusand pointed that out above but, as usual Zoe ignored it so she
could continue on.
Harry K
Glenn
came up with an actual article.
I'm glad you said you *were* "involved" with law enforcement. Even if
that means you are out of prison.
State regs differ, but an MD can and often *does* sign a death
certificate without autopsy performed at all. I personally know this
to be a fact.
It's just that in some cases, the cause of death needs to be
determined. Coroners don't perform autopsies on people that haven't
been pronounced dead, however, whether it is without a Pronouncement
or Certificate. And more than one autopsy can and sometimes is
performed. And that is what is relevant to Zoe's question, that the
person had been pronounced dead for some time, was cold and colorless,
not that Zoe used "Death Certificate" instead of "Pronouncement of
Death" to mean that the observer already knew that the person was
pronounced dead. It was an unneccesary nitpick, and not even
necessarily a correct one as I have already explained, that did stray
off the path of the "meat of the hypothetical".
Pfusand
Right at the beginning, I would like to accept Zoe's apology.
On May 29, 12:28 pm, Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
> On 23 May 2007 19:15:07 -0700, Pfusand <a...@szczesuil.com> wrote:
>
> >On May 23, 7:57 pm, Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> On 22 May 2007 20:05:36 -0700, Pfusand <a...@szczesuil.com> wrote:
>
> >> >This is my second attempt at a Google Groups posting:
>
> >> >On May 22, 8:41 pm, Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
(snip)
> Pfusand, since meaning is in the eye of the beholder, what I
> considered to be "derailed" you considered to be "on track." So I
> can't apologize for not seeing life the same way that you do.
All right. But do you really think that a set of comments that
marches through a post, commenting on statements in chronological
order, and immediately thereafter passing on to the next statement
should be described as "derailed"? I think "picky" or "dull and
plodding" or "obsessed with minutia" would work much better. (We're
going to ignore the neutral term "methodical.")
> But I
> do apologize if my use of the word "derailed" offended your
> sensibilities.
It offensed my sense of accuracy. (I am notorious for my lack of the
finer sensibilities.)
> >> >> You examine the records and review the death certificate.
>
> >> >> Next, you observe as the medical examiner slices open the chest
>
> >> >Oh, Zoe, you have no idea what you're talking about. The death
> >> >certificate is not issued until after the autopsy.
>
> >> the person had better be verified as truly dead (via a death
> >> certificate) before any autopsy is performed.
>
> >No, Zoe. You are wrong again. You are confusing the issuance of a
> >death certificate with the pronouncment of death. (Consider: You
> >know, or should know, that a death certificate lists the cause of
> >death. How can it get there before the autopsy?)
>
> you have a point there. I have not double checked you on this, but
> take your word that you know what you are talking about, so choose to
> stand corrected on this.
>
> Actually, on second thought, I decided to double check you after all.
>
> See:
>
> http://www.healthcare.uiowa.edu/path_handbook/Appendix/AnatomicPath/A...
>
> "The death certificate must be signed by a physician within 24 hours
> of the death."
You do realize that you are quoting a page concerning the actions of
physicians vis a vis the processing of deceased patients at a
university medical center, don't you? (I suspect that the situation
has been thoroughly confused by the actions of the state: "Starting
January 1989, a modified death certificate has been used in the state
to help insure that accurate information is provided in a timely
manner." This is explicitly about funding.)
Why didn't you just go to Wikipedia, where the first thing it says is
"A death certificate is a document issued by a government official
such as a registrar of vital statistics that declares the date,
location and cause of a person's death."
(snip)
> >So why do you insist on pointlessly
> >trying to abuse and insult me and the other people who have done you
> >the courtesy of responding politely to your "hypothetical"?
>
> I apologize for abusing and insulting you, Pfusand, if it has come
> across as abuse and insult. My responses did not come from a place of
> intent to abuse and insult, but if you have been harmed in any way by
> my phraseology, I apologize.
(There's that "if..." in your apology again. It's a habit by now,
isn't it? It will take some time to break.)
Mostly, I was objecting on behalf of those other people you so
egregiously misrepresented.
(snip)
> >> I am asking you to lighten up and think outside of your box. Can't
> >> do?
>
> >You *N*E*V*E*R* asked us to lighten up. That is a lie. I insist that
> >you apologize for it.
>
> note the tense of my request. "Asking." Not "asked." So of course
> you are right. I never before now asked you to lighten up. But as of
> this present post, I said, (present tense), "I am asking you."
> Therefore, I cannot apologize for something I have never said.
In the original post, you wrote "This is a hypothetical, so I dare you
to think outside your box..." I replied to it in the form you
requested. *Then* you wrote "I am asking you to lighten up and think
outside of your box."
Since you are linking the original "think outside your box" and the
new "lighten up" a reasonable person could argue either that your
linkage forms the implication that you requested both at the same
time, or that you are being unfair by imposing new rules
retroactively. (You were also inconsistant. You were, after all,
equally critical of those who were not serious.)
Would you rather I had called you unfair?
> Would you care to apologize for misrepresenting my "asking" to mean
> "asked"?
Sure. I am sorry that I reacted angrily to you changing the rules in
mid-stream. I should have just nodded and smirked.
(snip)
> >> > For me, the test
> >> >would be if the "death certificate" read the same way on the second
> >> >pass that it did on the first -- if I could even put my hands on it.
>
> >> ahh, a little bit of the scientific method creeps in -- just barely.
>
> >I see you insist on putting in your insults even when there is no
> >rational opportunity to do so.
>
> you read that through the filter of your own mindset. I was not being
> sarcastic, but you have to take my word for it.
I used the term "insults" not "sarcastic." Shall we take a vote on
it? Is "ahh, a little bit of the scientific method creeps in -- just
barely." insulting or not?
(snip)
> >> >Therefore, I would have to conclude that the stranger has the ability
> >> >to, essentially, reverse entropy. Beyond that, I would draw no
> >> >conclusions, because I don't have enough information (and because I
> >> >read and still remember "It is white on this side, Jubal").
>
> >> you took a cautious step forward and pulled it back immediately. Water
> >> too cold, too deep?
>
> >All right, Zoe. You claim, right here, that I took a step back. I
> >insist that you point out where I retreated.
>
> okay, I read too hastily. You did not retreat. You merely stopped. I
> apologize for that misstatement.
>
> > It was my intention, and
> >I believe I succeeded at it, to point out exactly how much of a
> >conclusion I could come to despite the paucity of 'information' you
> >put in your "hypothetical" situation. I reached that point, drew my
> >line, and stood right there.
>
> righto. Not sure where to place you then. Not in the "investigate
> further" column, or in the "tricks, doubt senses" column. Maybe the
> "dunno" column?
Well, that's what happens with experiments in the real world. You get
data that you don't expect. In fact, you should determine your
categories *after* collecting your data. Also, after devising your
categories, you should read through all your data *again* to make sure
you've got a good, one-to-one mapping between your data and
categories. (Plus an entry labelled "Absolutely Hysterical" for the
multiple "Zombie! <click, click, blam!>" entires.)
> Not that you should particularly care about what
> happens in my little sandbox, I'm sure. You have much more important
> things to think about.
But it annoys me if *you* don't bother to think about *your* sandbox.
I want you to think, to put one thought after another until you reach
a conclusion that fits the facts. It can be wrong; that's fine. But
this skittering away from doing the work of thinking is not good for
you.
> >> oh, definitely, your trustworthy person is very very smart; that is
> >> why you trust him/her.
>
> >No, Zoe. MY ex-husband is really, really smart, and I wouldn't trust
> >him one-tenth as far as I could throw him.
>
> then he is not your trustworthy person, is he. Why bring him up? I
> didn't.
Uh, um. You wrote "your trustworthy person is very very smart; that
is why you trust him/her." Please, Zoe, for your own sake, do not
trust people just because they are smart. It's a very bad idea. My ex
is *really* smart; one of the smartest people in the world, so he
qualifies as "very very smart" whereas the people I trust are only (in
comparison) "very smart."
And every last one of those people, myself included, can be fooled. I
know this; I've experienced this. It's just one of those things.
> >I need someone who is smart, knowledgable about sleight-of-hand and
> >Hollywood modeling, and not gullible. I know lots of people with the
> >first and last qualities, but I don't know anyone who also has *both*
> >of the middle two qualities.
>
> ahh, I see I can place you back in the "tricks, disbelief" column
> after all.
No, Zoe. You asked what I would think about *other* people claiming
to have the experience.
> And you haven't stopped right there, either. You are now
> considering looking for someone who knows about sleight-of-hand and
> Hollywood modeling, rather than investigating the possibility that
> entropy can be reversed at a higher level than any already known
> reversals.
Sherlock Holmes explained, "When you eliminate the impossible,
whatever remains--however improbable--must be the truth." This
putative substitute witness must be able to remove -- to *my*
satisfaction -- trickery and error as possible explanations. Only
then can the witness get to "genuine reversal of entropy" as the
improbable, but possibly correct answer. (It still leaves meddling by
time travellers, such as the pantope crew, you know.)
(snip)
> >> >What would you do, Zoe?
>
> >> based on the hypothetical fact that this person can do something as
> >> mind-boggling as restoring life, I would listen to him very carefully,
> >> weigh his opinion of me very seriously, and make every effort I can to
> >> correct my ignorance and ineffectuality before meeting him again.
>
> >What would you *D*O*, Zoe?
>
> please apologize for the yelling.
I'm sorry, Zoe. It just upsets me that you can't, even
hypothetically, commit yourself to any action. Some person or persons
in your environment (and I hope it's in the past) must have messed
with you royally to leave you like this. Well, pretend I didn't say
that.
Pfusand
That which does not destroy us
has made its last mistake.
-- Unspoken motto of the pantope crew
Glenn
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
How about committing yourself?
Read the reference from Wiki:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9337765
"It is often the primary care physician who is responsible for
completing the death certificate, for explaining the cause of death to
the family and, if appropriate, for referring some cases to the
medical examiner. The primary care physician should have an explicit
understanding of how to determine the cause and manner of death and
should use succinct, clear language in completing the death
certificate. When doubt exists or an external cause of death is a
possibility, the coroner or the medical examiner is the appropriate
public health official to contact."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3225/is_9_70/ai_n8576538
"If the person in this scenario was the last physician to see the
patient alive, and there were no concerns that the patient died of
unnatural causes, it is reasonable for this physician to certify the
cause of death, especially because of the longstanding physician-
patient relationship.
When the cause of death is uncertain, it may be necessary to use
qualifying terms on the certificate, such as "probable" or "presumed"
cause of death. If a physician has concerns about how or even whether
to complete the death certificate, it may be useful to contact the
appropriate coroner's office and discuss the situation with the
coroner or medical examiner. In my practice, I have found coroners'
offices to be most helpful in this regard.
The coroner's office should be contacted when there is concern that a
death resulted from other than natural causes, regardless of the time
interval between the illness or injury and the death. Circumstances
that should be reported to the medical examiner include possible
homicide or suicide, accident or trauma, sudden infant death syndrome
(SIDS), suspicious circumstances, and occupational causes.
With regard to unattended deaths, as in this scenario, the coroner's
office usually becomes involved shortly after the death is discovered,
and this office determines whether the circumstances leading to the
death require additional investigation. When coroners believe that
additional investigation is necessary, they assign the cause and
manner of death. Because that did not happen in this circumstance, it
might be reasonable to conclude that the coroner thought the attending
physician was in the best position to identify the probable cause of
death."
Do you still think an autopsy must be performed before the issuance of
a death certificate? Or that an autopsy would never be done if a death
certificate had been issued?
AC
It's a fucking thought experiment, Glenn. She doesn't even have a
concrete example to apply to it. The whole thing was designed as a
leading question, which seems pretty damn dishonest to me.
Tell you what Glenn, what *you* do in Zoe's thought experiment.
And here's another one for you. What if the socks in your sock drawer
began humming Zuth Spake Zarastrutha to you? Just what would your
initial assumption be?
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
Harry K
>
> - Show quoted text -
Nit pick, nit pick, nit pick. Yes, there are lots of deaths that do
not get autopsied. That has absolutely nothing to do with whether the
death certificate is completed at the scene. It isn't. The process
is.
Pronounce dead (by someone official)
Fill out death certificate if autopsy not needed. Note that that step
is not done at the scene of an accident, at natural attended death,
etc. It will be done back at the office.
Or
Autopsy
Fill out death certificate.
My point that you and Zoe ignored after Pfusand explained it is that
an autopsy is never performed until after the subject has been
pronounced dead.
You may now proceed to continue nitpicking and making an ass out of
yourself as you are so capable of doing.
Harry K.
Harry K
Glenn
You didn't and don't have a point, but one of things you said was
quote: "A death certicate is not signed until AFTER the autopsy." That
isn't always true, and there is no reason to make that assumption in
Zoe's hypothetical.
>
> You may now proceed to continue nitpicking and making an ass out of
> yourself as you are so capable of doing.
>
Another friggin loony bird.
Pfusand
(Glenn quotes a mindboggling amount of non-pertinent material, which I
have snipped.)
> Do you still think an autopsy must be performed before the issuance of
> a death certificate? Or that an autopsy would never be done if a death
> certificate had been issued?
Since every [discovered] death receives a death certificate, but not
every body is autopsied, clearly not every death certificate will be
issued *after* an autopsy.
However, it is still obvious that Zoe meant that the hypothetical body
in the hypothetical examining room had only been pronounced dead.
(She never did give a reason why the body was being autopsied.) If
she had written, "This person had been declared dead by the leading
thanatologist in the U.S." I and Harry would have been more than
content.
Harry K
So you can't read either? You missed the "or"?
>
> > You may now proceed to continue nitpicking and making an ass out of
> > yourself as you are so capable of doing.
>
> Another friggin loony bird.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Glad to see you continue to maintain your lack of reputation.
Harry K
Glenn
> On May 29, 11:55 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> (Glenn quotes a mindboggling amount of non-pertinent material, which I
> have snipped.)
>
> > Do you still think an autopsy must be performed before the issuance of
> > a death certificate? Or that an autopsy would never be done if a death
> > certificate had been issued?
>
> Since every [discovered] death receives a death certificate, but not
> every body is autopsied, clearly not every death certificate will be
> issued *after* an autopsy.
>
> However, it is still obvious that Zoe meant that the hypothetical body
> in the hypothetical examining room had only been pronounced dead.
> (She never did give a reason why the body was being autopsied.) If
> she had written, "This person had been declared dead by the leading
> thanatologist in the U.S." I and Harry would have been more than
> content.
>
Zoe's question, but to "correct" her scenario. Do you always correct
people and events in that manner? Zoe said something about the heart
being examined, and you "corrected" her and said that isn't done in
that order. Dude or Dudette as the case may be, almost *everything*
under the sun happens. It is rather amusing to see you try to correct
a hypothetical, though.
It may be obvious to you, or even to everyone, that Zoe "meant" the
body has only been pronounced dead. But it isn't relevant. You can't
get any more pronounced dead before an autopsy as you can after
beginning one, or after having one. On the other hand, anything can be
forged and all paperwork can have mistakes. But sticking to the
hypothetical scenario, there was a death certificate, an autopsy was
being done afterwards, rigor mortis was observed, and the medical
examiner was taking the heart out. And that is the reality of the
scenario; and it can and has happened, although I wouldn't attest to
the heart removal thing. But even if it has never happened, the
hypothetical would still stand. Your analysis of the scenario would
logically be restricted to the actual events hypothesized.
And to polish this all off, you were wrong about the technicalities in
the first place. Rigor stays with a body longer than 24 hours and
autopsies can be ordered and performed after the death certificate has
been signed, either by the medical examiner before the actual autopsy
(just not the cause part filled in) or after it has been recorded. If
you'd like some "non-pertinent" material references on the rigor
mortis thing, let me know.
Zoe
>
>
>Right at the beginning, I would like to accept Zoe's apology.
wonderful.
>> Actually, on second thought, I decided to double check you after all.
>>
>> See:
>>
>> http://www.healthcare.uiowa.edu/path_handbook/Appendix/AnatomicPath/A...
>>
>> "The death certificate must be signed by a physician within 24 hours
>> of the death."
>
>You do realize that you are quoting a page concerning the actions of
>physicians vis a vis the processing of deceased patients at a
>university medical center, don't you? (I suspect that the situation
>has been thoroughly confused by the actions of the state: "Starting
>January 1989, a modified death certificate has been used in the state
>to help insure that accurate information is provided in a timely
>manner." This is explicitly about funding.)
the funding has nothing to do with when the certificate is signed. The
information is compiled from the death certificates in order to
determine health trends and where to place funding.
>
>Why didn't you just go to Wikipedia, where the first thing it says is
>"A death certificate is a document issued by a government official
>such as a registrar of vital statistics that declares the date,
>location and cause of a person's death."
I did go to Wikipedia, but checked other sites as well because I don't
like to stop at the very first link. And please note that a
distinction is made between mechanism/mode of death and cause of
death. The physician notes cause of death on the death certificate,
and the medical examiner (if an autopsy is done) will record mechanism
or mode.
snip>
>
>(snip)
>> >> I am asking you to lighten up and think outside of your box. Can't
>> >> do?
>>
>> >You *N*E*V*E*R* asked us to lighten up. That is a lie. I insist that
>> >you apologize for it.
>>
>> note the tense of my request. "Asking." Not "asked." So of course
>> you are right. I never before now asked you to lighten up. But as of
>> this present post, I said, (present tense), "I am asking you."
>> Therefore, I cannot apologize for something I have never said.
>
>In the original post, you wrote "This is a hypothetical, so I dare you
>to think outside your box..." I replied to it in the form you
>requested. *Then* you wrote "I am asking you to lighten up and think
>outside of your box."
>
>Since you are linking the original "think outside your box" and the
>new "lighten up" a reasonable person could argue either that your
>linkage forms the implication that you requested both at the same
>time, or that you are being unfair by imposing new rules
>retroactively. (You were also inconsistant. You were, after all,
>equally critical of those who were not serious.)
very methodical approach. But incorrect.
>
>Would you rather I had called you unfair?
I would rather that we have a decent conversation without ad hominems.
>
>> Would you care to apologize for misrepresenting my "asking" to mean
>> "asked"?
>
>Sure. I am sorry that I reacted angrily to you changing the rules in
>mid-stream. I should have just nodded and smirked.
you sure you want to use the word "smirked"? The definition is: to
smile in a conceited, knowing, or annoyingly complacent way. Does
this describe you?
snip>
Zoe
thanks for covering points that I failed to make, Glenn. You are
upgrading my sandbox.
Glenn
In case you missed it, I did go to the Wiki site, and pulled one of
their references. Pfusand claimed it was "non-pertinent material" and
snipped it:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&...
"It is often the primary care physician who is responsible for
completing the death certificate, for explaining the cause of death
to
the family and, if appropriate, for referring some cases to the
medical examiner. The primary care physician should have an explicit
understanding of how to determine the cause and manner of death and
should use succinct, clear language in completing the death
certificate. When doubt exists or an external cause of death is a
possibility, the coroner or the medical examiner is the appropriate
public health official to contact."
This shows that a death certificate is often completed by a physician
as opposed to a medical examiner after an autopsy. The implication can
also be seen that if doubt exists, the coroner or medical examiner is
the right person to contact. Nothing to the effect that an autopsy
request can not be granted after a death certificate is filed. And it
would be absurd to suggest such a thing. Your scenario was perfectly
reasonable in that respect.
snip
Pfusand
(snip)
> And to polish this all off, you were wrong about the technicalities in
I thought about this and decided that, since it was May, and has been
a hot May, that less than a day was more likely than longer.
My original point still stands (and Zoe agrees with me): She didn't
know what she is talking about.
Pfusand
> On 29 May 2007 20:40:07 -0700,Pfusand<a...@szczesuil.com> wrote:
> >Why didn't you just go to Wikipedia, where the first thing it says is
> >"A death certificate is a document issued by a government official
> >such as a registrar of vital statistics that declares the date,
> >location and cause of a person's death."
>
> I did go to Wikipedia, but checked other sites as well because I don't
> like to stop at the very first link.
You engaged in cherry-picking.
> And please note that a
> distinction is made between mechanism/mode of death and cause of
> death. The physician notes cause of death on the death certificate,
> and the medical examiner (if an autopsy is done) will record mechanism
> or mode.
Uh... I think the website you used pointed out that no one was
supposed to use mode of death, because it wasn't helpful.
(snip)
> >Would you rather I had called you unfair?
>
> I would rather that we have a decent conversation without ad hominems.
I would rather you understood the actual meaning of the term "ad
hominem attack."
(snip)
> >I should have just nodded and smirked.
>
> you sure you want to use the word "smirked"? The definition is: to
> smile in a conceited, knowing, or annoyingly complacent way. Does
> this describe you?
Yes.
Glenn
> On May 31, 2:27 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
> (snip)
>
> > And to polish this all off, you were wrong about the technicalities in
> > the first place. Rigor stays with a body longer than 24 hours...
>
> I thought about this and decided that, since it was May, and has been
> a hot May, that less than a day was more likely than longer.
You'd expect that in a morgue or autopsy room.
>
> My original point still stands (and Zoe agrees with me): She didn't
> know what she is talking about.
>
Whether Zoe agree to that is beside the point. Her scenario is not
unreasonable or impossible, and you don't know what you're talking
about.