I’m reading this strange story about a woman who ended up dying in a cryotherapy chamber, and I happen upon this sentence:
“Medical examiners told Ake’s family that she died within seconds, though it’s not clear whether she suffocated, or had another medical emergency.”
My question is whether the medical examiner would be honest here? If the death was likely prolonged and painful, there is no benefit to the family knowing this, so is honesty the best policy for medical examiners?
(I have this in GQ because I’m asking about what actually happens, but understand that this might end up elsewhere in a discussion of what should happen.)
Freezing to death (from people who have almost but not quite completed the process) you go from being cold to paradoxically feeling warm to falling asleep.
If she suffocated on nitrogen… that is also reported, by people who almost but didn’t die from it, to be painless as well. You’re breathing and then you’re unconscious, there’s no sense of suffocation or air hunger.
So, even if it wasn’t instant it most likely wasn’t painful, either.
How can one even breathe in air that temperature? I’d think one breath and your lungs would freeze immediately, at least enough to not be able to do gas exchanges. My WAG: She very quickly suffocated (assuming that something else about that kind of treatment doesn’t kill one even faster).
The story seems very fishy, that a manager would try to use that machine while she is all alone there.
Presumably, while the machine blasts super cold air at you it doesn’t shoot enough into the compartment to instantly drop the temperature of the whole unit to dangerous levels, otherwise no one could use it at all. People using the machine as intended continue to breath, so no, I don’t think it instantly froze her lungs.
I’m no expert but I have heard various people speak on the subject. Joe Rogan swears by it. Many units are only from the neck down. For instance I believe the whole body therapy is not legal in NY. For places that are head to two you do wear some protective gear like a mask over your mouth, a headband to protect your ears and eye protection. So you are breathing in the super cooled air directly into your lungs.
And, one might wonder, in any circumstance where the city or county might be held liable or simply sued (whether they might lose or not), would the medical examine be under pressure to say whatever it might take to cover the city or county’s municipal ass?
Why would a ME/Coroner lie to protect a legal entity such as a city?
I have had exactly ZERO interest in this case, so I am not going to guess the ‘real’ cause of death and its time of onset.
People walked outside at both poles long before Global Warming started melting the permafrost.
Breathing freezing air does not necessarily freeze the lungs.
Addressing the OP’s question, apart from this case. I can’t imagine a medical examiner deliberately and specifically telling a family, “Your loved one suffered a long and excruciatingly painful death,” virtually no matter what the circumstances. I wouldn’t consider it “lying” to say to the family something like “We’re not sure exactly when death occurred, but we have reason to believe it was soon after <the incident>,” or, even more vaguely, “There aren’t specific indications that s/he suffered,” or “Death occurred sometime after <the incident>, but s/he was likely unconscious.” I mean, throw the poor people a bone. This is, of course, if there isn’t likely to be court testimony under oath at some point.
Saying “death was instantaneous” is going out on a flimsy limb unless there’s real evidence of that (like a point-blank gunshot wound to the head). I don’t know all the examples of that, as I got all my M.E. training (and my law degree) from TV.
Now if the person died staked to an anthill in the desert… it’s gonna be pretty clear he did suffer. Best not to ask about that one…
[QUOTE=Loach]
The days of lying to protect the family’s feelings are over. Now if it is revealed to not be the truth everyone assumes government cover up.
[/QUOTE]
Truth. People tend to react very, very badly when they get conflicting information over a loved one’s death. I’ve seen several cases, both military and civilian, where someone got the wrong information at some point (or different people told different versions of the event) and it caused the survivors a huge amount of grief and doubt. Grieving people want certainty.
Now, this is just me reasoning through the problem, but I am sure the same logic would apply to an ME. There might not be a reason for them to volunteer the information unless the family specifically asks about it, but if they have to offer their opinion they will want it to be factual. If it comes out later that the ME lied, even with the best of intentions, it re-opens old wounds and makes the family question or disbelieve everything.
OTOH, we see lots of comments from supposed experts after air crashes that “nobody suffered even a moment. If they weren’t dead, they were rendered unconscious almost immediately.”
Likewise there’s a persistent meme that folks who jumped from the WTC on 9/11 must have been unconscious on the way down.
Neither of which ideas stands up to a moment’s critical thought about the forces, pressures, etc., involved.
Many, many people have a deep need to believe death isn’t traumatic. And lots of people who know better seem to be feeding them the lines of BS they crave.
I was thinking the same thing, and specifically about Air France 447 that crashed in the ocean after a deep stall. There were lots of descriptions coming from officials about the passengers peacefully reading magazines as they unknowningly descended. You had some great posts like this one describing the reality of what they probably went through (and your description was for 10-15 degree rolls, compared to the 40 degree rolls the AF flight experienced).
So maybe medical examiners don’t do it quite as much, but people in an official capacity will certainly stretch the truth in cases like this.
Jan 1968 (time of ‘See Johnny get his head blown off on the 6:00 O’clock News!’) the death of a hometown boy was described as ‘rifle and bayonet wounds to the chest’ - not exactly sugar-coated.