17 réponses à ce sujet

[Katiefrost]

Probably a mundane explanation for what happened, but it's still pretty strange:

[Sigma Tauri]

Those are extraordinary circumstances, but is it really strange? At 14 hours submerged in freezing water, an 18-month year old should've died. Technically, she was dead if they were performing pediatric CPR, indicating cardiac arrest. But, people can surprise you, even if her chances of revival are slim.

[Katiefrost]

Who was crying out for help?

[Fidite Nemini]

Freezing water can basically cryofreeze your body, going into a comatose state where it needs exceedingly little oxygen, to the point that the amount you've currently got in your blood stream can suffice for quite some time. But 14 hours is still miraculous as far as my amateurish understanding goes.

[mybudgee]

This kid is clearly destined for greatness

[Riven326]

It's probably because it was so cold. I'm not a doctor, so I don't know. But I imagine the temperature of the water had something to do with it. Did the mother die as a result of the crash or did she drown?

[Sigma Tauri]

Freezing water can basically cryofreeze your body, going into a comatose state where it needs exceedingly little oxygen, to the point that the amount you've currently got in your blood stream can suffice for quite some time. But 14 hours is still miraculous as far as my amateurish understanding goes.

 

Hypothermia can induce a organ-protective hypometabolic state. But,the toddler was in cardiac arrest for god knows how long. There's really little said in the video.

 

It's probably because it was so cold. I'm not a doctor, so I don't know. But I imagine the temperature of the water had something to do with it. Did the mother die as a result of the crash or did she drown?

 

The driver died. It wasn't stated if she was her mother.

[Fidite Nemini]

This girl better grow up to be an MMA champion cos damn is she tough.

 

More likely she's going to grow up with some severe brain damage. A brain even in coma can only go work properly for so long on just a single breath of air ...

[Sigma Tauri]

More likely she's going to grow up with some severe brain damage. A brain even in coma can only go work properly for so long on just a single breath of air ...

 

Conjecture. Very little is said about neurological development.

[DeathScepter]

this have a bit of a religious/spiritual slant, that spirit of the woman called out to get people to the baby. The Spirit world and the material world are closer than we think. Just because we can't see it, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist

[leighzard]

Our neurology team uses a hypothermia protocol for any codes called where anoxic brain injury is suspected (read: heart has been stopped long enough to deprive the brain of necessary oxygen).  There's data showing much better outcomes actually, dating back to soldiers fighting in colder locations in during both world wars.  I'm constantly amazed at how resilient the human body is, especially our brains!

[Fidite Nemini]

Conjecture. Very little is said about neurological development.

 

Until medicine/science can figure out exactly how a brain/neuro-system developes, there is only conjecture. In which case I'd rather call it common sense.

 

And I have little doubt that there was some sort of damage. Unless the report is embellishing the story ruthlessly, 14 hours of oxygen deprivation is far from healthy for a brain and this is not accounting for the rest of the body.

 

Of course, I'm still assuming that the report is using the word "submerged" correctly, instead of meaning "oh, she was in the car and it was full of water, but the kid itself only got a bit wet ..."

[Riven326]

this have a bit of a religious/spiritual slant, that spirit of the woman called out to get people to the baby. The Spirit world and the material world are closer than we think. Just because we can't see it, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist

 

No, that's exactly what it means. If it doesn't hold up under scientific scrutiny and we insist on believing that it exists despite this, then we might as well throw the book out the window and declare that anything we can possibly imagine can (and does, like in this case) exist when it's convenient for us.

[Sigma Tauri]

Our neurology team uses a hypothermia protocol for any codes called where anoxic brain injury is suspected (read: heart has been stopped long enough to deprive the brain of necessary oxygen).  There's data showing much better outcomes actually, dating back to soldiers fighting in colder locations in during both world wars.  I'm constantly amazed at how resilient the human body is, especially our brains!

 

That's funny. I know surgical patients are induced into a hypothermic state in vascular surgeries, like grafts for aortic arch or thoracic aortic aneurysms. But, I think the window to get the brain oxygenated is time-limited before brain damage starts to occur.

 

Until medicine/science can figure out exactly how a brain/neuro-system developes, there is only conjecture. In which case I'd rather call it common sense.

 

And I have little doubt that there was some sort of damage. Unless the report is embellishing the story ruthlessly, 14 hours of oxygen deprivation is far from healthy for a brain and this is not accounting for the rest of the body.

 

Of course, I'm still assuming that the report is using the word "submerged" correctly, instead of meaning "oh, she was in the car and it was full of water, but the kid itself only got a bit wet ..."

 

There could be damage. But, you and I don't know. It's conjecture because the video didn't present anything beyond that the "baby is okay and playing with her father." If you know the baseline of neurological development, and there was a developmental delay or behavioral change to an 18-month old, there could suspected neurological damage. But, any neurological delay isn't stated or shown. You didn't see anything.

 

In clinical thinking, you don't make assessments based on little data and "common sense". If you suspect something, you want to get something diagnosed just to validate it.

[DeathScepter]

 

No, that's exactly what it means. If it doesn't hold up under scientific scrutiny and we insist on believing that it exists despite this, then we might as well throw the book out the window and declare that anything we can possibly imagine can (and does, like in this case) exist when it's convenient for us.

 

 

Even Science will change and will always change. For it is the nature of Science is about Discovery and that is for another thread about what science has discover.

[Riven326]

Even Science will change and will always change. For it is the nature of Science is about Discovery and that is for another thread about what science has discover.

On this we agree.