In response to this article: http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/lawyer-declared-brain-dead-wakes-up-after-calls-to-pull-plug-on-her
tl;dr: Doctors diagnose brain death, but patient later fully recovers. The doctors who were guilty of malpractice (misdiagnosing a brain death) are getting off scot-free, as they watch the credulous laypeople celebrate their religious “miracle”. Win-win.
There tends to be a stark contrast between how some laypeople interpret an event, versus the real experts’ interpretation.
Experts know very well that all kinds of significantly likely reasons exist that could have led to a misdiagnosis of “irreversible brain death”.
That’s why you don’t actually see experts within the medical industry making a big deal out of such events that some laypeople frivolously interpret as a “miracle”.
In fact, if the Hong Kong doctors genuinely made their diagnosis while strictly and completely applying the medically accepted brain death criteria, the entire medical community would have to take the case extremely seriously.
But clearly, the experts are unfazed, while some laypeople are going about their usual past time of relying on their own extremely limited knowledge to interpret events according to their own whims and fancies.
What constitutes brain death? Depends on which hospital you’re in, study finds _ http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-brain-death-policies-20151228-story.html
Brain death still a vexing issue _ http://www.mayoclinic.org/medical-professionals/clinical-updates/trauma/brain-death-still-vexing-issue
While the families of the brain-dead usually take doctors at their word, or at least accept that their loved one’s life is over, something went wrong; both the hospital and the family lawyered up. The hospital portrayed the family as ignorant. “There is absolutely no medical possibility that Ms. McMath’s condition is reversible or that she will someday recover from death,” Shanahan told the California Superior Court. Meanwhile, experts consulted by the McMaths’ legal team—who included a “forensic-intelligence analyst,” an Ohio doctor who concluded that the teen-ager was reacting to the presence of her family and thus could not be dead, along with a lawyer known for his opposition to California’s malpractice laws—insisted that Oakland Children’s had misdiagnosed her.