Talk:Dead on arrival

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine: Emergency Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Emergency medicine and EMS task force (assessed as Low-importance).

First Responders

First responders most certainly are qualified to pronounce patients as deceased. Dead on arrival refers to arrival to an event (i.e. arrival of firefighters, paramedics, police, etc.), not arrival to the hospital. To quote Brady Emergency Care (8th ed.) (an EMT-B textbook), "When Not to Begin CPR or to Terminate CPR":

"Usually, of course, you will perform CPR when the patient has no pulse. However, there are special circumstances in which CPR should not be initiated even though the patient has no pulse.

Obvious mortal wounds (...)
Rigor mortis (...)
Obvious decomposition.
A line of lividity (...)
Stillbirth (...)

"In all cases, if you are in doubt, seek a physicians advice." (p.818)

Perhaps this is not the case in all jurisdictions, but it is ccertainly NOT the norm to force providers to provide CPR unconditionally to any pulseless patient they come across. Do you really think an EMT can't pronounce a decapitated patient? Shaggorama 08:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC) BAZZE MOVIE,ABAR MAIA GULA HEAVY SHUNDOR HAHAHAHAHA[reply]

It is really amazing how many things it is possible to start an edit war about. 101.178.163.208 added a "See also" section with two items to this article. This was reverted by N0n3up. JesseRafe restored the section, but was reverted. I stated to N0n3up in their talk page that I, too, found the "See also"-addition in accordance with the guideline WP:SEEALSO. N0n3up said that they kinda agree with you. Nevertheless, they again reverted when JesseRafe again restored the section, this time partly self-reverted to add one of the items.

The arguments brought forward against inclusion, mostly in edit summaries, are weird reading. The edit summary in the first revert by N0n3up was please use talk page, but no reason was given for removal. The edit summary of the next revert said Reverted due to no source/argument provided and you should probably consider why this image fits appropriately. JesseRafe explained that "See also"-entries never are sourced and asked about what image was mentioned. At about the same time I raised the same things in their talk page, to which they replied I kinda agree with you there, then went on to explain that an emergency department is a physical place whereas DOA is a term..., which actually is the only argument they have ever used in this revert war that relates to the content. Regarding their mention of image, they said that by image I meant how it looks on the article, not an actual image, which seems to me to be complete nonsense. After they had "kinda agreed", they reverted again, saying this is disruptive to say the least before they finally added one of the entries back.

The argument about "physical place" vs. "term" is effectively shot down when the entry "Mortuary" is accepted and reinserted. So "Mortuary" is acceptable, while "Resus" is disruptive? Then you have lost me. Mortuary is also a place. To put it crude: A DOA is when you end up in the Mortuary instead of the Emergency department.

My opinion is that both entries are well within the scope of the WP:SEEALSO guideline: The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics.

Needless to say, N0n3up has no consensus for removing the "See also" link. My only objection is that the term "Resus" is a redirect. I will therefore add the direct link to "Emergency department" instead. --T*U (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary Sentence

On the summary of the article, the last sentence reads:

They may also never wake up.

Isn't this WP:TOOMUCH? --Malikussaid (talk) 00:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of it was too much and was contested by another editor as well. I deleted most of that for being shoddily written and not really imparting information. Opencooper (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]