Humanities desk
< February 15	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 17 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 16

Manner of death

In the United States, there are officially only five manners of death: natural; accident; homicide; suicide; and undetermined. Which would most likely be applicable in the following circumstances? Let's say that a doctor is operating on a patient and the patient dies. The death might be through negligence of the doctor or perhaps no negligence is involved (i.e., all surgery entails some degree of risk, even if the doctor performs perfectly). Under both of these scenarios, what would likely be considered the manner of death? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If a person dies in surgery due to reckless negligence--the surgeon goes out to lunch and gets drunk--it is manslaughter: The unlawful killing of a human being without any deliberation, which may be involuntary, in the commission of a lawful act without due caution and circumspection--and hence, homicide. manslaughter

If the killing is perhaps negligent but not recklessly so, A person has acted negligently if he or she has departed from the conduct expected of a reasonably prudent person acting under similar circumstances, it is an accidental death. negligence

See unnatural death and death by natural causes: "A death by natural causes . . . is one that is primarily attributed to an illness or an internal malfunction of the body not directly influenced by external forces." (our article)

How this is defined exactly will depend on the laws of the jurisdiction and the findings in trial (or a coroner's inquest). μηδείς (talk) 02:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see no references in that section. Death typically falls under state law, so I wouldn't be surprised if there are fifty different standards. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 04:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's also death by misadventure, which is an unnatural death caused by the decedent's own behavior--skydiving accident or drug overdose, or example. μηδείς (talk) 05:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't death by misadventure be a different name for death by accident? Nyttend (talk) 14:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure whether an accident caused by someone else would count. I get the impression death by misadventure is the sort of thing that might disqualify one from getting an insurance settlement, while someone else's causing an accident wouldn't. My answer has been a synthesis based on the terms, all of which are defined separately. We could use some better informed commentary. μηδείς (talk) 17:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest this PBS documentary on coroners and medical examiners in the US: [1]. Unfortunately, many coroners are completely untrained and either elected or appointed, meaning they tend to succumb to political pressures to rule a death to be whatever type would be most expedient for their career. For example, deaths of prisoners in police custody which are clearly homicides and not ruled to be so.

As they pointed out, the main problem with using political appointees in such a role is that the dead can't vote, so unless the dead have living advocates with political power, those deaths can be easily swept under the rug.

Then there's the problem that deaths often overlap many categories. Take my grandfather, who had diabetes (probably due to lifestyle choices), which caused poor circulation. Poor toenail care (care-giver negligence ?) caused an ingrown toenail (accident ?) which became infected. The doctor who treated it failed to amputate the toe in time (medical negligence ?) causing the foot to become gangrene. At that point, my grandfather chose not to have his leg amputated, preferring to die instead (suicide ?). Eventually the blood poisoning stopped his heart (natural causes ?). So what should we say was the cause of death ? StuRat (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would presumably be natural causes, because it was a natural progression without intervention: "attributed to an illness or an internal malfunction of the body not directly influenced by external forces". That doesn't mean a lawyer, should you consult with one, wouldn't tell you there was malpractice, since doctors have a duty of care towards their patients. μηδείς (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marcin Ignaczak

Who is Marcin Ignaczak? We have no article on him, and Google doesn't help, but he got sixteenth place at last week's WP:5000. Nyttend (talk) 02:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never saw that page (WP:5000) before. But – related to your question – how can an article have 500,000+ views ... if there isn't even an article, to begin with (i.e., red link)? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And that isn't the only redlink in the list, either. Some of the entries are surprising to a suspicious degree. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest reading the talk page, starting with its archives (1 and 2). Bots are mentioned, denial-of-service attacks are mentioned. You could also post your question on that talk page, as it is watched by editors who understand how this report works. And see also this section on the "Polish redlinks" at the Top 25 Report's talk page, and Popular redlinks + Popular redlinks/Archive 1. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Google points to this page, if the same Ignaczak, he is a professor at the Adam Mickiewicz University Institute of Prehistory in Poznan. 91.46.157.55 (talk) 09:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bank loans to corporations, and directors' personal guarantees

My understanding is that when a bank makes a loan to a small company, they usually demand a personal guarantee from the director(s). This is understandable, as by default a company's owners are not responsible for its' debts.

My question is, at which point does a bank no longer seek such a guarantee? If Microsoft or Google seek a line of credit from a bank, does the bank still demand personal guarantees from the directors / board members? E.g. if facebook seek a bank loan, does Mark Zuckerberg have to put his personal fortune on the line in the (admittedly unlikely) event of them defaulting on the debt? Is there a "threshold" point at which a company is big or credit-worthy enough, such that the bank feels no need for such guarantees? And if so, where does the threshold lie? 124.180.76.78 (talk) 03:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Surely this is the kind of thing that's determined on a case-by-case basis, and each bank does it differently. I'll leave it to others to attempt to suggest where that line is normally placed (e.g. the most common spot), since I'm not that familiar with the topic. Nyttend (talk) 04:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sex = Love

This is sort of a Captain Obvious question but it's one I've always wondered about: why are humans the only species that 1) equate sex with love and 2) do it for fun (rather than strictly for reproduction)? --TeamPrenda (talk) 13:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's not that obvious at all... but your question has some flawed premises. First, humans don't necessarily equate sex with love (or love with sex)... second there are many species that limit their sexual interactions to a single life-bonded mate (ie with mates they "love")... third, humans are not the only species that have sex for simple pleasure, or reasons other than reproduction (Check out the sexual habits of Bonobos). Blueboar (talk) 14:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you asked an animal - any animal - why it was having sex, I'm sure it couldn't tell you. There's simply no way of knowing what induces animals to copulate, or whether they have any understanding that it's at all related to reproduction. I think the safest position, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, is that they do it because they feel hormonally and/or instinctually drawn to doing it, and/or they enjoy it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 14:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

People do many things because they have an instinctive urge to do them, but that does not mean they enjoy them. Urinating, defecating, sleeping, scratching an itch: these are all things we do because of an urge that, in the end, can't be controlled (you just have to sleep or pee eventually, however much you may resist). We feel relief, but do we actually "enjoy" the act in these cases? We know how, physiologically, sex gives physical please for humans, but I'm far from sure that the same is true for many other animals Paul B (talk) 14:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding on this, human behaviours are somewhat caused, definitely conditioned, and certainly reflected on and contextualised in complex language and social cultures. We know of no other animals with these characteristics. If you asked an animal what sex meant to them, it couldn't tell you. If you asked a human, eventually after creating some kind of temporary language for the discussion, the human would tell you, and much of its telling would relate to the human's context, social order, and cultural meaning. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that cats in heat make the same caterwaul noise that they do when in pain. From that, and the penis barbs in the males, I can't think the females much enjoy sex. Indeed, they would be seriously injured if they engaged in intercourse regularly. So, they only do so when it's time to get pregnant. It seems like more of a compulsion for them than a pleasurable activity. StuRat (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Female cats is what I had in mind when I said they're hormonally drawn to it. I've slightly amended my earlier post. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many primates masturbate, dogs lick their own genitals, and many animals have been known to try to 'shag' random objects (and other animals not of their own species). I am pretty sure from that, that they do it for pleasure, or as said above, relief. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As blueboar correctyly implied out, some primates, especially the bonobos, have sex for a variety of reasons, not just to have fun. Homosexuality is not uncommon. I am not even sure whether reproduction is a conscious reason for sex among bonobos. DanielDemaret (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you implying that reproduction is a conscious reason for sex among other non-human species? If so, I call "citation required". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am implying that I have never read any proof thereof. The reason I mention it at all, is that I have read of all sorts of tests where they try to figure out how far the cognitive abilities of chimps, and I would therefore not be surprised if I suddenly one day come across such a suggestion in the literature I read. If you see any such suggestion, please do not hesitate to inform me :) DanielDemaret (talk) 02:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And by "literature" I mean books like "Primate Cognition" by Michael Tomasello, not "planet of the apes". DanielDemaret (talk) 02:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)As other have pointed out, humans aren't the only species to have sex for fun, though I'm amazed no one has mentioned dolphins as an example of animals who have sex for fun (who have tried going after their human handlers every now and then). Albatrosses, swans, and some other birds are said to be mates for life. Prairie voles and gibbons also appear to be mates for life. Some wolves and foxes (at least the alphas) have found to be rather monogamous (an inverse of human society, where the financial "alphas" are more likely to have mistresses or even be polygamous). While polygamy supposedly allows the strongest male to pass down a lot more of his genes, monogamy makes it more likely that everyone gets to mate, which ensures variety in the gene pool and decreases the chances of inbreeding. Monogamous mates are more likely to have a partner that can help them and their descendants survive, while descendents of polygamous unions more likely to be raised by one parent if any (and that's assuming a jealous alpha female doesn't come along and kill off the offspring of the non-alpha females).

Also, rape is not love (not matter what), but it is sex. Sex can be better for people who love each other romantically (but not as family, and sometimes not even as friends), but plenty of sex exists without love and plenty of love exists without sex.

That said, because traditionalists recognize that sex within love within marriage is ideal, they have tried to deny sex outside of love outside of marriage, which has created some problem when rationalism and instinct join together for once to point out for us that sex exists exist outside of love and marriage. Horny teenagers want to mate, they decide they must be in love, because neither they nor their parents are equipped to say they just need to masturbate while thinking about other people for a while.

And that said, the opposite reaction, that sex should be independent of love (and marriage) is equally problematic, as it leads to just as much commodification of partners, and can cause people to indiscriminately use a really powerful drug with people they do not need in their lives. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TeamPrenda -- You can read discussion in The Third Chimpanzee and elsewhere about how the somewhat distinctive human pattern originates at least in part from the fact that human infants are born relatively helpless (or "altricial") compared to most other primates, and need extended care over a long childhood, plus the fact that humans generally live in groups containing several or more adults of each sex. The extended childhood means that it's not really feasible for the mother alone to bear all (or almost all) of the burden of raising and providing for her children (as is the case in chimpanzees etc.). The main device which has evolved in humans for sharing such child-raising responsibilities is long-term male-female pair bonding (which doesn't really exist in chimpanzees or orangutans). However, male-female pair bonding becomes more complicated when such a pair lives in a group which includes multiple adult males and adult females. Relatively frequent sex (not necessarily likely to lead to reproduction) is one way of distinguishing the mated from the unmated. Gorillas and gibbons have long-term male-female relationships, but don't commonly live in largish social groups, so sex is much less frequent than in humans. The human pattern in certain ways resembles that of nesting birds which assemble in groups, more than it does the social-sexual patterns of other primates... AnonMoos (talk) 12:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]