Talk:Anencephaly

Comment

"In the United States, approximately 1,000 to 2,000 babies are born with anencephaly each year. Female babies are more likely to be affected by the disorder. About 95% of women who learn that they will have an anencephalic baby choose to have an abortion. Of the remaining 5%, about 55% are stillborn. The rest usually live only a few hours or days."

What is the 1,000 to 2,000 number, exactly? Is it the total number of fetuses with anencephaly, regardless of what the parents choose to do? Or is it just those 5% that aren't terminated? Using the word "born" makes it confusing, since it sounds like most anencephalic fetuses are never born at all. Conspire 15:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I came here to ask the same thing... nice stats, where'd ya find 'em? — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • 05:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes they are born with an intact cranium...It's just the brain underneath is missing. In my anatomy textbook there was a bit about how this needed to be diagnosed quickly, otherwise the parents could take the baby home without ever knowing there was a problem, as automatic reaction still existed, but it would die within a few days to weeks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.130.37.12 (talk) 01:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Images

I realize "Wikipedia is not censored" but for what its worth the images prevent me from reading the entire article. I would like to know more about the topic, but I do not feel comfortable looking at the images for a long enough time to continue reading. At times when I can desensitize myself enough to look at the images, I still find them too distracting to read the text of the article. I have already read numerous discussions about objectionable images and understand the logic behind including them, but consider that it also prevents certain people from accessing the information in the article. The harlequin ichthyosis article seems to have found a suitable solution in using a medical drawing. At the very least, it should be acknowledged that embedding the images among the main text, instead of, say, at the bottom of the page, makes it hard for a lot of people to read that relevant information.--Vlad the Impaler (talk) 01:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

You can disable images if you register: WP:NOIMAGE ChaosE (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

How is this a solution? This is disturbing as fuck, can someone remove the stupid image or change it to something less shocking?

I agree with Vlad. Users who aren't registered and have found the image setting should be able to approach Wikipedia for answers without being put off by shocking images. I'm not for censorship either, it's just that viewing these images should be optional. Right now, everyone has to see them, until they register and disable images. By then it's probably too late for most people who just happened to end up here after googling. And besides, why should one have to disable all images when one could instead get a link to the images - with a warning? /P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.176.236.195 (talk) 12:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that users shouldn't have to register to avoid being subjected to such an upsetting photo. My sister's fetus was diagnosed with anencephaly, and I came here to learn more. Thanks God she didn't do the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.8.34.218 (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be possible for Wikipedia to implement some sort of "hide spoiler" system that a lot of other wikis, forums and messaging boards have? That way the images could be kept, yet make the article readable without looking at them and give people the choice to seeing them or not. One could also include warnings of offensive and/or graphic material.

I must admit that even I have difficulty ignoring the picture as I read the article. A system like the one I just mention would (I think) be greatly appreciated. Nederbörd (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I found the pictures to be pretty gross, but I thought the same for other wikipedia pictures (like the one for necrosis), especially medical pictures. But I would vehemently oppose altering the display of such images. I think they should remain as the main picture, and should not be removed/hidden. Yes lots of people dealing with this topic personally will be horrified to see these images, but lots of people won't be. Another user who commented below had what I thought was not a bad idea: If you are squeamish, cover the offending pictures yourself, like with your hand, or a sticky note or something. Would that be inconvenient? Yes. Would it be inconvenient for the majority of people to have to jump through some level of hoops so that they can see a picture associated with article? Yes. Wikipedia should not be tailored to sensitive users. The pictures should not be chosen to be purposefully or solely disturbing, they should be chosen to be accurate and informative. When I go to an article about a disturbing condition, I appreciate seeing a disturbing picture. Jake Papp (talk) 17:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The pictures are disturbing, but it is in truth a disturbing condition. Arguments may be made about how useful a graphic illustration of the condition is to understanding it, but removing the pictures because they are distressing seems inappropriate. There are parents who briefly had children like this, who perhaps loved them, and suggesting that such children should be hidden from view seems to me a shameful thing.137.111.13.167 (talk) 07:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The pictures are very off-putting and actually prevent me from reading the article. At the very least, the pictures should be near the end of the article. I just want to read about the condition. I'm not a sadist and I don't enjoy the images. Ewick12 (talk) 23:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that anyone who supports the inclusion of the pictures is sadistic?137.111.13.167 (talk) 05:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Uh, yeah... I'm pretty sure you don't have to be a 'sadist' to want to get a better idea of the physical effects of this condition. >.> I agree with JakePapp's solution to the images. I understand that they might be disturbing for some people, however different people find different things distasteful. You could end up with half the wiki images covered. 10.7.12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.5.70.1 (talk) 07:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Hellow just wanted to note that I was moving th disturbing image of the baby without a head to the bottom of the article where it will be minimized with a warning sign if anyone would like to view the image they only have to hit the show button. Sunfishtommy (talk) 03:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

While editing I decided to keep the image in the same location but still incorporated the minimize content box with a warning. Sunfishtommy (talk) 04:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

There are so many images of anencephalic babies that are dignified, like images of a loving mother holding their newborn. I agree that the more unbecoming images should be retained for purposes of information and education, but there should also be images of babies with these conditions being loved, because (in my opinion) these babies are persons. --Zxop9 (talk) 16:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Can I second/third/fourth that the images can be hidden? I'm not normally a "sensitive" person but I mean... dead baby pictures?! Come on. 93.63.6.231 (talk) 09:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Please somebody remove the picture of the dead anencephalic baby. Imagine if that was your child, would you want a picture of it on Wikipedia for people to gasp at? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.191.205 (talk) 16:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Longest Recorded Lifespan?

Has any(thing?) lived with anencephaly for more than a few days? Months or years? It seems possible, although unlikely, that this could be done.

MSTCrow 20:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Longest anencephalic on record is said to be twelve years old. Anencephaly has several different degrees. Cerebellum is also involved in consciousness as well as diencephalon (basal ganglia) and lower brainstem levels. Jakob's lowest degree, namely anencephalics with diencephalon/cerebellum and phylogenetically older formations, with or without rudiments of archipallium, make around two percent of all anencephalics. Since about 80,000 anencephalic people are born every year in the whole world, this makes between 800 to 1600 anencephalics being added to the permanent living population of anencephalic people per year worldwide. The whole size of this worldwide population is only guessed and badly determined. Reason is that anencephalics' statistics come only from neonatology. After anencephalics stabilize and this medical specialty ceases to be incumbent, the long-living anencephalics are taken home, usually poor homes, mostly in poor countries. There, also usually, they are kept out of the neighbors' sight because of shame, since having a highly-retarded child is too often considered such.

This behavior prevents due record of the long-lived cases, specially in those countries (adding up to most of the world population) where their deaths are recorded as from other causes (usually idiocy-related malformations, cardiac or other failures, etc.) Guesses have been published for some countries; e.g. Argentine (total population, 38 million) has a permanent population of anencephalic citizens of between "several dozens" and 150. It is not discriminated how many of them are long-lived (several months- and years-old) and how many are the less than a month-lived ones, thus replaced at a faster rate in the living anencephalics' permanent population. Both of these last categories (namely, above one month-old, and clinically-stabilized less than one-month old anencephalics) are mesodiencephalic or upper anencephalics and thus have a mind, psyche or existence which besides being objective is also subjective, i.e. an interiority. In many non-Anglo-American countries the word for "consciousness" does mean only a state of mind; this developmentally-achieved particular state might be absent in some of these anencephalics but it doesn't entail that such a mind, psyche or existence doesn't exist in them. These anencephalics thus feel pleasure or pain and relate unexplainedly to their mothers, to whom they are responsive by way of assuaging previous disquiet states. They thus establish a child-mother relationship ("primary dyad", as psychoanalysts say) which is fairly rewarding for the mother and frequently leads her to a philosophical or conceptual maturity. As professionally dealing with and acquainted with the very retarded people, in several cases I have witnessed the mother's sadness at the child's demise, whence in no case of mesencephalic or upper anencephalic could I advice abortion; even for the lower anencephalics I cannot rule out the existence of subjective interiority. Retarded people make a series running from mild retardation to those classically called stupid, imbecille and idiots. Anencephalics are technically considered retarded people, "idiots of the last degree" as Jakob (1909) put it.

I have no time to engage myself in refurbishing this article, which currently is non-neutral and misinformative. The sentence "there is no chance of the infant ever achieving a conscious existence" is clearly false. It was inserted twice, the other time saying "the lack of a functioning cerebrum permanently rules out the possibility of ever gaining consciousness". Both statements are utterly incorrect and the use of "consciousness" instead of "mind", "psyche" or even "soul" misleads additionally the reader. The sentence "About 95% of women who learn that they will have an anencephalic baby choose to have an abortion. Of the remaining 5%, about 55% are stillborn. The rest usually live only a few hours or days" is clearly incorrect and looks to me as abortion-clinics propaganda. This should be mentioned, IMO. Reason is, anencephaly is currently a heavily-wielded topic in political controversies related to why to respect persons more than goods of exchange (e.g., money) or social collectives. Against such "tactical" confluence of the interests that might be labeled as "wild-capitalst" and socialist efforts, unfortunately the defense of anencephalics is too often taken up only by religious groups; in such conditions, I think that the exposition has scarce possibilities of being neutral. A way out is, mentioning the long-lived anencephalics. Yet I personally have very scarce possibilities now of downwriting the entry myself, specially since most sources come from abroad and are in many foreign languages. As I found it, MSTCrow query was important, so I at least tried to contribute a bit toward a more neutral account. DR

If what above is "abortion clinic propaganda", then what you're saying is pro-life propaganda. Without a cerebrum, there can be no consciousness. It's like claiming to be able to see without eyes. And mind and psyche are synonymes, by the way, and is used as a catch-all term for the subconcius, individuallity, etc, all which is also controlled by the cerebrum. As callous as it might sound, a human being without a functioning cerebrum is just a construct of living tissue. (edit: forgot to log in >_< ) Atzel 10:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm in no way what you say about me. And what you say about anencephalics is out of this section's topic. Yet I'll try to clarify.

'Anencephalic' is a misname: anencephalics possess cerebrum, or rather all of them possess encephalon and some of them possess cerebrum. To be precise, all of them possess oblongata, some of them pons and mesencephalon, most possess part of or the whole diencephalon, some possess parts of archicortex, paleocortex and even shreds of neocortex - far more than an alligator, for comparison. Such organic structures might developmentally provide sensory contents ("mind") to an experiencer ("psyche"). Let me respectfully suggest that if, as you claim, all of it is "controlled by the cerebrum", then kindly go and tell your opinion to the researchers discussing the presence or either absence of mind in the great squid - you would solve their conundrum, as the squid's "cerebrum" is a completely different structure. So you are saying that their argument is useless, as you claim that clearly there is no mind where no vertebrate-like upper neurostructure is present. Yet, against your opinion, they remain arguing because they refuse to tie body-mind interactions to the architectures developed in the chordate phylum.

It is simply scholarly neither tying the body-mind interactions to the neural arrangements observed in primate neocortex (all the previous, supporting neural levels may also contribute sensory differentiations), nor vision to human or vertebrate eyes. You hammered just on the nail. A parallel situation was caused, time ago, by misnaming "eye" a pigmented spot with or without refractive guidance, in simple organisms that do "see without eyes" (or without what one would call "eye" on adult vertebrates). I think you have no experience with deep idiots'care: if so please try to observe some, hopefully a long-lived anencephalic too. Anencephalics are idiots in the lowest intellectual degree. Please go & see, don't be theoretical on this. We are on the same side in trying to escape propagandas and provide a neutral account. BTW, Atzel, what on Earth does "living tissue" mean? DR

The opposite of dead tissue, maybe?Atzel 12:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes and I've got Godzilla hidden in my kitchen which in Argentine v UK population and infant mortality rates means there are between 460 and 3700 more in the country. No wonder they're really pushing that Cilit Bang crud on the telly these days. DR - wiki is not a place for pseudo=medical opinions of the pushing-credibility-way-too-far type. And I'm being polite. Ta Plutonium27 22:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

DR, I don't think what you're referring to is truely anencephaly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.5.70.1 (talk) 07:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

In other languages...

There's a corresponding page on fr.wikipedia (anencéphalie), but it doesn't link here, and this page doesn't link there. I don't know how to fix this.85.28.82.47 03:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't make stats US-specific

How does the annual incidence in the US translate into per 1000 pregnancies?

Image

Note on following discussion: Disturbing images have been removed. We are parents whose unborn child has just been diagnosed with this disorder. Many people looking up this condition will be similar parents or people who know a child with this condition and look to wikipedia as a source of further information. You can be sure that the primary image in particular has caused the same distress for other people as it has caused for us. There are other images available which accurately represent the condition without being gratuitously shocking, as really, this one was. We are figuring out how to place one of these images on this page so that it can be accessed by deliberately clicking on a link and will include a warning that the link will bring you to a graphic image. This is not a 'censorship' issue. It's basic common sense and a modicum of sensitivity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinfinn (talk • contribs) 16:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Can we please get the image off of here?? Its really very disturbing, and there are external links. Schprunkel 16:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't be so judgmental and mean. They're human beings too and shouldn't be shunned like monsters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.53.37.222 (talk) 20:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Very startling to see it. Chumbakabakabakabakabaka 17:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's job is to inform, and not to censor. The image will remain —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.82.106.57 (talk • contribs) 11:01 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, wikipedia's job is to inform, but that doesn't mean that a warning cannot be issued. The images are startling to visitors that aren't expecting them, especially for people experiencing the subject directly. --Stratman 13:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Schprunkel and Chumbakabakabakabakabaka, please familiarize yourself with WP:NOT#CENSORED and Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. This subject is shocking by the very unfamiliar nature of it and it's hard to imagine how to represent it fairly without some kind image. There is also a general lack of material about this in the web, so finding a more palatable yet representative replacement could be hard. --jibun_{≈παντα ρει≈} (keskustele!) 14:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The image is rough to see, having gone through this myself an not really understaning what was going on at the time, the image has helped explain alot to myself an my daughter, that at the time only knew mommy was hiding a baby. Thanks for having the information here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.58.109.3 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC+2)

I agree the image is disturbing. It is disturbing enough that it should only be viewable by a link containing a warning. No need to censor it, but no need to force people to see that either when they may just come here for some information and may not necessarily want to view graphic images. The second picture isn't so bad and I don't see why that can't be the main photo. 216.239.67.161 (talk) 16:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with the NOT CENSORED principal, I find myself unable to read the article due to the image. Sure, leave the image, but why not put it in the article somewhere near the bottom? There's censorship and there's intrusive material which can actually stop someone from reading the article...the image is important, but it's not the first thing I want to look at when I load this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.150.129.34 (talk) 08:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It's disturbing, yes, and it certainly startled me when I linked here. But I think it should stay, until a less graphic animated depiction can be produced. At that point, it could be moved to the bottom.Fuzzform (talk) 07:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

To me, it seems that it would be a great shame if we at Wikipedia were to scare away well-intended people who want to become educated about anencephaly, simply because we blindly adhere to the principle of "non-censorship. I agree that the image is quite disturbing, and I, personally, was unprepared to see it.70.45.193.231 (talk) 01:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

All images should remain Wikipedia is not a children's book and may seem offensive to someone. Starting removing anacefals, we would go on with removing images of penis, sex, warfare, decease and anything other that may be considered offensive or disturbing by someone.--Dojarca (talk) 16:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I was really disturbed by the pictures, and it made me close the page immediately. However, since I still wanted to know about the topic, I would be forced to keep looking at them (in the end I just copied the page and pasted the text in a plain-text editor). I understand that we can't remove pictures that anyone finds disturbing, but using a bit of common sense (and reading the comments on this page) we should conclude that a large part of the readers are shocked to see the images unprepared. I think it's therefor better to make a link to the images, or just use a (very) small thumbnail which possibly makes it less shocking. Besides; obviously it might be startling to see a picture of human genitals on there signified pages, but at least you can expect to see something like that. The point is that "Anecephaly" doesn't mean much to the average Joe like me, and I wouldn't expect to see something horrible as on this page. If the page was named something like "Babies without a brain" or "Babies missing part of their head", you know you might see something shocking images. Just my thoughts. 87.212.170.64 (talk) 11:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

These images are extremely disturbing. While I understand that it is not Wikipedia's job to censor, can we replace the image with a medical drawing from a textbook? It would be informative without being so horrifically graphic. More graphic photographs can be shown after a jump or warning, but they shouldn't be at the top of the page. 4.153.249.208 (talk) 05:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that the images should be linked to rather than displayed within the page. Other pages that detail disturbing congenital defects consider people who are interested in reading up on the subject but do not want to see images of it, especially two images of it... Yes, it would be censoring, but it is hardly comparable to having a picture of a penis, considering this is not normal development. 193.132.145.151 (talk) 12:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If someone looks up the uncommon medical term Anencephaly, then they already know what kind of medical pictures go with it. I cannot believe anyone would want to remove a relevant picture because its icky. If you can't handle reality, may I suggest Disney.com - MrGuy

Well, MrGuy, that's a fine point until you consider people who just click on a link because they don't know what a word means. That's what brought me here. And i dont see why medical drawings or a "warning, graphic image" cant be used.-DJLO (talk) 08:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed; if you don't want to see images of medical conditions, then don't look up medical conditions. It's a horrible world out there, an encyclopaedia needs to reflect that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelzdking (talk • contribs) 12:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC) I agree. I sure wish I could read the rest of the article without being seriously disturbed. I was scrolling down, reading along, scroll a bit further, "HOLY HELL!" I said. Not fun. Some warning would be nice. There is messages for everything else.. "This article needs cleanup! This article is messy! This, this, this, this, this, this and this needs a citation! This article contains Korean characters! This article is under construction!"... You'd think somebody would have had the presence of mind to include a small warning at the top of the article stating that the article contains extremely graphic and disturbing images. Save-Me-Oprah^(talk) 04:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

What about at least getting it right side up - why the bat pose? Evan Carroll (talk) 17:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with suggestions either to move the image to the bottom of the page or to use some sort of warning at the top. The image does prevent me personally from reading the article, and I'm not usually a squeamish person. Yes, I understand that removal of the image would be exceedingly rude to any reader with any connection to someone with Anencephaly, and I'm not saying we should take it away completely, but it is very off-putting to a reader who simply wants to learn the medical term. I would like to read the article and understand the condition, and then perhaps peruse the related images if I so chose. That's not possible for me right now, and judging by earlier comments, it's not possible for many others, either. Sparkstarthunderhawk (talk) 01:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Why not google cache the page and read the text-only version, if offended by the image? The image is educative and hardly "prurient".--Cymbelmineer (talk) 13:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Marvellously sanctimonious refusals to act responsibly in the matter of shocking images. Such attitude is one of the many reasons why Wikipedia is not taken seriously. Obviously you should give a warning that the article contains shocking images, so that people such as I who consulted the article to find out what the word meant are not hurt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.122.43 (talk) 14:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't find this offensive by any means, it simply makes the page uninhabitable. I had to cover my eyes with my hand just to click the talk page to get here. These images detract from the usefulness of the article by making it unusable for those of us who are disturbed by the images. Wikipedia should not be censored, these images should be available, but I shouldn't have to look at deformed babies to learn about a medical condition. I don't feel an image at the top of the page is necessary at all, this is just too much. Let me pose a hypothetical situation. Someone makes an article entitled "Gore Thread" about those disgusting threads on 4chan. In this scenario, wikipedia standards would dictate that an appropriate image at the top right might be a man with his head smashed with a sledgehammer, as one would find in any truly repulsive gore thread, but it isn't necessary for anyone looking to research the psychological reasons for these things to see.--Whatshisfoot (talk) 02:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Nepalese Baby

What's the deal with the Nepalese Baby? I saw it on the Urban Legends Reference Page and they have it classified as 'undetermined'. Is this a case of anencephaly? I Love Cookies 17:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The conclusion seems to be that baby is indeed a case of anencephaly. [1] However, the status remains "unverified" since the news artocle that mentioned the case cannot be independently verified. Jumping cheese 11:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

YouTube video

Is this it? Maybe add it to the external links? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2N_ivaTe588&NR=1

At what point can this be diagnosed?

When in a pregnancy can a woman learn that this condition exists in the child? Is this a significant source of late term abortions? //// Pacific PanDeist * 03:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The face?

Concerning the leathery, darkly-colored face in the pictures: Is that a by-product of anencephaly or is that just what a fetus's face would normally look like at the point where a disorder like this would be diagnosed?

That seems to be a product of the imaging technique used to photograph the fetus. 68.197.72.206 (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Warning?

The images on this page seem to be there for a good reason. But, since they are there, do we really need a warning on the external links section? Somebody having read the article would have seen the images and thus would already know what to expect in the external links. Thomasiscool 00:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[gdfpgo f=pfdhgoi 09r8 0q34lrgj pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.234.2.56 (talk) 03:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The external ones are certainly more varied and, arguably, more graphic. 24.205.50.170 (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm usually not bothered by things like this, but I must say, I was somewhat startled when the main picture on this article suddenly popped up upon the page being loaded. I wasn't expecting it at all. Compared to just about any other article on WP, this one has a couple of truly graphic images. I'm sure most readers would find the pictures quite disturbing. I hardly think that a warning for the external link is necessary. How about a warning for the internal links?

I say with very real, very genuine feeling that I may have nightmares. I just clicked on a link and I came here. Is there any way to move the pictures somewhere where interested parties can see them, but they won't surprise the unsuspecting? -71.161.223.246 (talk) 08:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

i have to agree that the page needs a warning and/or a link to the images instead of directly displaying them. i understand the concerns of censorship and accurate information,, but those must give way to basic human decency. and it's INDECENT to display photos of badly deformed dead infants. to show them without warning is not averting censorship, it is only addign shock value, and i doubt (hope) that is not what Wikipedia is about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.84.222 (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Same as other article on web?

The introduction matches word for word, pretty much, with the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke website - http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/anencephaly/anencephaly.htm. There doesn't seem to be acknowledgement of this source, though their site does come up in the references, but referring to a figure used later in another part of the article.

I'm guessing that maybe it is okay to lift articles directly from authoritative sources with permission, instead of re-writing them needlessly but I wasn't sure. Is this a normal/allowable practice? - and you will know know me by the trail of dead. (talk) 23:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I got Editor assistance here and so I'm going to edit the introduction and all pieces of information that are fully taken from the NINDS site, either by rewriting, or quotation with reference. - and you will know know me by the trail of dead. (talk) 05:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

On closer inspection, it has been changed somewhat by other editors, but I will go through referencing NINDS more, as this is where the information comes from, and this is where readers should be directed to verify the information. - and you will know know me by the trail of dead. (talk) 06:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

References needed

I've done a little bit of work on this article in regards to referencing sources and depicting the facts from those sources accurately (people more experienced with medical science articles are encouraged to look over and see if I did an acceptable job).

However, I feel that some statements, including the entire section on Prognosis, is uncited. I'll try to return to do some more, but I encourage anyone else looking at this, especially someone with access to medical journals, to go through, verify the statements and cite them, please. - and you will know know me by the trail of dead. (talk) 07:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This sentence bothered me the most; "It depends on the case and individual but often the prognosis is not as grim as it was once reported. There is a support group with much current information under the diagnosis "hydroanencepaly" that is useful in dispelling some of the common myths associated and showing the faces of some of the children affected as they age." I couldn't track down who added it originally, but aside from the hopeless tone and syntax, the only google hits I found with "hydroanencepaly" were this exact quote, littered across the web. I'm all for axing it. Shn525 (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Consciousness

I have temporarily removed the following statement pending discussion:

However, the assertion that anencephaly rules out the possibility of consciousness ever being achieved has been specifically disputed.

This is given a single source:

Merker B, Consciousness without a cerebral cortex: a challenge for neuroscience and medicine. The Behavioral and brain sciences vol 30 issue 1, pp63–81; discussion pp81–134, 2007 pmid 17475053, doi=10.1017/S0140525X07000891

I personally think that one needs rather more than a single paper to overturn the consensus of neuroscientists. If there is more evidence of a dispute within the profession on this matter, let's discuss it within the article, but as it stands I think the sentence gives undue prominence to a single dissenting paper. --82.18.14.143 (talk) 19:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I think some prejudiced idiot from higher up on the talk page did that. Called retarded children a "rightful crime against nature" 72.136.137.24 (talk) 06:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

That paper contained no new data, or even a new analysis of evidence, in fact the vast majority of the paper referred to hydranencephaly. The only mention of anencephaly was a reference to a 1926 paper relating to a dr who had taken a child into his care who could smile. Whether that was a case of anencephaly is debatable in light of the longevity data.137.111.13.167 (talk) 08:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

A baby born with anencephaly is usually blind, deaf, unconscious, and unable to feel pain.

This is wrong as consciousness is a state other than sleep or coma. Since state of sleep determined by thalamus, not cortex, these people can experience periods of sleep interlaced with periods of consciousness. Idioty does not mean lack of consciousness, you know.--Dojarca (talk) 14:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The statement you quoted came from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. If you find another reputable source with a contrasting viewpoint, you can include it in the article in addition to this, but this line should stay in. - Drlight11 (talk) 01:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Treatment & Parental Information

Am I the only one who thinks this section, in particular the parental information in Q&A form, does not fit in an encyclopedia? Bounce_G ^{talk · contributions} 18:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but I do not trust myself enough to go through and write an article that will conform to the standards. I do not know enough about the subject.Sheepeh (talk) 03:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I really find it too awkward. It sounds like tips from a Magazine, or some doctor or nurse speaking. It's too coloquial. It shouldn't directly speak to the reader. Sounds like counseling. Should I revert it to the original article?--Chirigami (talk) 01:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Ouch. The idea of this happening to my child, makes me not want anymore chidren. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.140.54 (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

otherwise, a "Prevention of birth defects" link, should be added (linking to that article about not doing drugs nor alcohol, eathing healthy, that stuff) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.240.97 (talk) 04:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

What about Nicholas Coke?

On CNN and a few other news sites, I read that a baby named Nicholas Coke had survived a year. He has only a brain stem, yet is conscious, can breathe, and apparently even smile and laugh. While this seems to be a very mild case, I think it should be mentioned. Any thoughts? RenegadeSanta (talk) 20:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

US laws regarding organ donations from living humans

Just wanted to weigh in on something I noticed in the Ethical Arguments section. There are at least two places that stated that US laws forbid the transplant of organs from donors who are still alive. This is actually not a true statement - if a person is able to give their legal consent (a conscious, properly-functioning adult, usually), then a living organ transplant is perfectly legal. And children, even infants, do donate organs legally.

I rephrased those sentences in the article to indicate "donors who are alive but are unable to give consent". This is probably not the best or most accurate phrasing, but the intent here is to draw the line between a person (adult, child or infant) who is clearly alive and healthy, and an anencephalic infant who falls into that area of ethical dispute. Anencephalic children fall into an area in which the law is unclear, and it's likely to remain unclear for a long time while people argue about whether these children are technically and/or legally alive. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 08:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, on further review, the original phrasing was more accurate than I realized - some US states do, in fact, prohibit organ donations from living persons. I believe it's still legal for a healthy adult of sound mind and body to donate an organ while they're alive, but in Florida (at least at the time of the Baby Theresa case), living children could not, even if they are perfectly healthy. (Any legal experts here who can clarify this further?) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 08:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Personhood: "Modern philosophers..." citation

I added a "citation needed" template to the claim that modern philosophers think that personhood is derivative of consciousness of the external world. That strikes me, a graduate student in philosophy, as highly contentious. There are memory theories of the self, recognition theories, physicalist theories. There are theories of legal personhood which allow that someone is still a person after they're dead, so long as they have a legally executable surviving interest. On the broader question of "Personal Identity," one can note that the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy doesn't use the word "consciousness" at all except in its citation. Personally, I think the "modern philosophers" attribution is just incorrect, but if it isn't, then it needs to be cited in a credible way. However, I'll leave that to people who follow the page.74.176.54.211 (talk) 03:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that claim is problematic. I would like to add that most of the "Personhood" section is not referenced. Since it is poorly referenced and tangential to the subject of the article, I would prefer shortening the "Ethical and legal implications of ancephaly" section to include only factual, referenced information and leaving the philosophical arguments to their respective articles (e.g., personhood). Does anyone object? In the mean time I shall flag that section. Joshua Born (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with both of the above comments. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Image under question

This is a notice that the image File:Enencephaly.jpg has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted.

To be clear, my reason for questioning this image is not simply that it is disturbing (as mentioned above, WP:NOTCENSORED is a reasonable response to that objection). Instead, as I lay out in detail in the appropriate place, my reason is that the image was taken in a private place and is demeaning to the subject. As such, the consent of the subject's next of kin should be required, and there is no evidence that it was given.

You are welcome to contribute to the discussion. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Human Rights Groups

I saw the following line in the article, and thought it seemed very odd.

"In 2012, Brazil extended the right of abortion to mothers with anencephalic fetuses. This decision is, however, receiving much disapproval by several religious and human rights groups.[30]"

Why would human rights groups offer disapproval on this? Reading the cited reference, there is no mention of human rights groups at all, only 'radical religious groups'. This statement should be corrected, or an appropriate reference cited.

--Weegiekev (talk) 05:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

FixedCFCF (talk) 16:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Image move

While the images should by all means remain, consensus seems to be that those of very graphic nature should not be the ones featuring the article. I have moved the images to the additional images section in accordance with WP:NOTANARCHY, WP:DEM, WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY.

I have further added a disclaimer concerning the images, so that it is easy to find the images if you want to, but not necessary to see them to read the article. CFCF (talk) 15:52, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Also WP:NOTCENSORED gives a very good account advocating against incorporating the images in the text. As per:

Especially with respect to images, editors frequently need to choose between alternatives with varying degrees of potential offensiveness. When multiple options are equally effective at portraying a concept, the most offensive options should not be used merely to "show off" possibly offensive materials. Images containing offensive material that is extraneous, unnecessary, irrelevant, or gratuitous are not preferred over non-offensive ones in the name of opposing censorship. Rather, they should be judged based solely on other policies for content inclusion.

and

Controversial images should follow the principle of 'least astonishment': we should choose images that respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article. For example, editors selecting images for articles like Human body have thousands of images of naked bodies and body parts available to them, but they normally choose images that portray the human body in an unemotional, non-sexual standard anatomical position over more sexual images due to greater relevance to the subject―the more sexual one is not given special favor simply because it is more offensive. Similarly, editors at articles like Automobile do not include images of vehicles with naked women posing near them, even though such images exist and "Wikipedia is not censored", due to concerns with relevance. Wikipedia is not censored, but Wikipedia also does not favor offensive images over non-offensive images.

-- CFCF (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Of the two images that you put inside a collapsed table, I believe that File:Anencephaly side.jpg is perfectly acceptable, as is its sister image File:Anencephaly front.jpg. These two images show the deformity in a way that is not only clear to the reader but also respectful to the image subject (i.e., the fetus/baby being photographed). In my view, these two images are not unnecessarily shocking and I would favor their continued prominent display.

However, I have previously argued that File:Anencephaly.jpg is not an appropriate image for Wikipedia, not because of its graphic nature (which would be immaterial under WP:NOTCENSORED) but because it is demeaning to the image subject and additionally because it was likely taken without proper permission. If you look at the archives of this talk page, I believe that File:Anencephaly.jpg is almost entirely responsible for the offense that various readers have taken. That offense has been generally met with a response of WP:NOTCENSORED, but as I have repeatedly tried to make clear, that is not a sufficient response to the charges that I am leveling against this image.

I strongly encourage people to read the extended discussion of this issue that took place last December on the Possibly Unfree Files noticeboard. The discussion was not finally resolved because the item ended on a technicality, and I was advised at the time that the proper recourse was a WP:Request for comment here on the article talk page. Since then, I have not had the personal energy to organize such an RFC, but perhaps now is the time to do it. Would anyone be interested in helping to support such an effort?

I would suggest that such an RFC be accompanied by a notification to the personal talk page of every user who has ever commented on this talk page. This should be general enough to avoid falling afoul of WP:CANVASSING but would also account for the fact that many users may not follow this article, and may not even be frequent WP editors who would see the normal RFC alerts, precisely because they are frustrated and disgusted by this image's continued presence on Wikipedia. Just to be clear, that is not a value judgment on my part, but simply an interpretation of the comments that have appeared in this space over the years. Any comments welcome. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

To a certain degree I agree with you, but WP:NOTCENSORED states:

Controversial images should follow the principle of 'least astonishment': we should choose images that respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article.

As it stands there may be some loss in clarity because of the move of File:Anencephaly side.jpg. Maybe it can be the main image if for example it was in a smaller format so as not to display too much detail, which might be slightly 'less astonishing'. While File:Anencephaly.jpg is by far the most graphic I find File:Anencephaly front.jpg to be a tad harsh as well.

Having searched quite extensively for a free non-photographic image of anencephaly I can not find one that is public domain, but that would be the most ideal solution in my mind.

My suggestion is to see if any voices are heard arguing against the current form of the article, and if so instigating an RFC.CFCF (talk) 20:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The image on this page would be ideal, and I will try to see if it is possible to acquire a license: http://www.cmfblog.org.uk/2013/10/15/defending-the-indefensible-twenty-reasons-to-think-twice-about-aborting-a-baby-with-anencephaly/ or http://www.teindia.nic.in/mhrd/50yrsedu/q/6J/BM/6JBM0802.htm (both found off google)

If not it may be a viable option to create a free image with these two as reference. CFCF (talk) 20:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I have raised the subject on Wikipedia talk:MOS#Collapsible galleries concerning content of difficult nature in medicine CFCF (talk) 23:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia Talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles.

The edits made are also in line with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Images which states:

Shock value: Some images of medical conditions or procedures disturb some readers, e.g., because of visible deformities or the presence of blood. Potentially disturbing images should be not be used for their shock value, for decoration, or merely to add an image. A detailed caption that identifies specific features may simultaneously increase the educational value of the image and reduce the likelihood of disturbing readers. Placement in a highly relevant section, rather than in the introduction, is also likely to reduce the shock value to readers. Wikipedia:Offensive material offers additional advice.

-- CFCF (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

We do not typically hide images. This option has been put forwards for a number of images including those on the Rorschach and has been turned down generally by the community. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

By the way were is the consensus to hide the image? I do not see a RfC support this move. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Are photos of anencephalic newborns relevant to the article?

Do the images which show newborns, one of which also contains a vast amount of blood on this page give reasonable help in understanding the subject as apposed to the shock they instill? Should X-ray and non-photographic images be prefered? Is a compromise to place them in collapsible galleries? See above discussion and discussion on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Collapsible galleries concerning content of difficult nature in medicine CFCF (talk) 10:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• Snowball Yes The issues raised here have been extensively discussed and settled. Yes, graphic images should be used where they help the reader to understand the article subject. No, we should not confine our resources for educating the reader to non-photographic images and/or to collapsible galleries.

I want to be clear that this RFC has nothing to do with the more focused and nuanced questions that I have proposed for discussion. The only possibly-useful point that is being brought up here is the guideline that "Potentially disturbing images should be not be used for their shock value, for decoration, or merely to add an image," which may be useful as a secondary argument against File:Anencephaly.jpg if it is determined that there are sufficient alternate images that lack its deleterious features. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• Yes images of a disease are relevant to articles about a disease. Efforts to hide depictions of a condition as the condition is unpleasant is anti encyclopedic IMO. And we have discussed this issue many times before. If you do not want to see disturbing diseases 1) do not look them up on the Internet 2) turn you images off and just read text (there are lots of options available to do this). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
• Yes LT910001 (talk) 05:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

So far consensus seems to point that the images should be retained. I found a high-quality image from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities which is public domain. I have replaced this image as the main image for the article. The other images are still available under the Signs & Symptoms section so have not been removed. Is this acceptable? CFCF (talk) 10:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The decision should be made on the basis of which images is the most instructive. The CDC image you mention is a drawing that does not show a particular illuminating angle and generally has no advantage over a photograph, so I agree with the user who undid your edit. I might suggest that this image, which you previously suggested, might be the basis of an instructive diagram if someone redrew it and put it into the public domain. It might even be instructive enough to be at the top of the article, as I think it makes clear what is going on better than any photograph I've seen, though I would see whether there is consensus on that before taking action. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• Questions. Why are we adding drawings when we have images of the real thing? Why couldn't this have been discussed at WT:MED? Why was a RfC wise? Can the person who started it just close it? It cheapens the process to leave things like this open, IMO. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 14:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this RFC was unneeded and that User:CFCF should close it. However, I would cut some slack to User:CFCF on that, as well as on the choice of venue, as I think s/he is acting in good faith and is not particularly experienced. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I was suggested to start an RfC by several sources, and did so because I felt there were things here that could be improved, and were not possible to improve without discussion.

As to why drawings are added. They explain the subject matter in very high clarity and as per WP:GFFENSE they respect:

Controversial images should follow the principle of 'least astonishment': we should choose images that respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article.

To not admit that these images are controversial is to dismiss the discussion above on this talk page.

-- CFCF (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the close. I believe "we should choose images that respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article" (my emphasis of that). In this case, it is a reader expectation that pictures will be shown, and cartoon images are lower-quality. I don't like the word controversy period. So I don't know what a controversial picture is, to be honest. Is there an accepted definition for the term controversial picture? What would it be? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

So why are we sacrificing quality for a misleading drawing? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

To discuss semantics; a good definition of a controversial image could be an image that gives rise to the discussion seen around Talk:Anencephaly#Image. Conventional expectation in medical literature is not to show the most gruesome image concerning the subject. I would be very surprised to see an image of a bloody dead new-born if I picked up my pediatric pathology book or embryology book such as the image in File:Anencephaly.jpg.

I previously stated that an image such as http://www.cmfblog.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/anencephalicinant.jpg is very good at explaining the subject, but I am still looking for a free alternative of said image.

Lastly we are most certainly not speaking of a "cartoon" or a "misleading drawing", but of a high quality medical illustration sufficient in explaining the subject on the website for the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

By using this image as the main image we should be able to down-tone some of the controversy brought up in preceding discussions.CFCF (talk) 16:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Also as per WP:GFFENSE

Especially with respect to images, editors frequently need to choose between alternatives with varying degrees of potential offensiveness. When multiple options are equally effective at portraying a concept, the most offensive options should not be used merely to "show off" possibly offensive materials. Images containing offensive material that is extraneous, unnecessary, irrelevant, or gratuitous are not preferred over non-offensive ones in the name of opposing censorship. Rather, they should be judged based solely on other policies for content inclusion.

-- CFCF (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

CFCF, now that you're being pushed, you have stopped talking about File:Anencephaly side.jpg and File:Anencephaly front.jpg and are only discussing File:Anencephaly.jpg as too "controversial" to be in this article. I have previously given very specific reasons for the inappropriateness of File:Anencephaly.jpg, which I have already argued is nearly solely responsible for the "controversy" you mention, and I have to say that I'm a bit miffed that you went ahead with this much less nuanced and less focused RFC that (I'm afraid) has reduced the potential traction of the RFC that I previously proposed.

Regarding your quote from WP:GFFENSE, it appears to be a consensus that File:Anencephaly side.jpg and File:Anencephaly front.jpg, though they are graphic, are more "effective at portraying the concept" than any of the alternatives that you have proposed. Thus, they should be included under that policy.

Finally, CFCF, you need to be careful about edit warring. Even if you have not violated WP:3RR, your behavior is bordering on disruptive, and that could lead to consequences (I'm not an admin, so please take this as nothing more than friendly advice). It's become clear that your views are not those of the majority, so you need to focus your activities on the Talk page. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• Still non consensus to move the image. Please get consensus before it is moved again. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Suggesting illustration File:Anencephaly-web.jpg be main image, others under signs and symptoms in small gallery, and File:Anencephaly.jpg removed from article, both as per WP:GFFENSE, and as the illustration is a high quality medical illustration of a living new-born and not a fetus as File:Anencephaly side.jpg & File:Anencephaly front.jpg.

-- CFCF (talk) 10:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible to have both File:Anencephaly-web.jpg & File:Anencephaly side.jpg in the side panel as in other articles?(I was unable to do this in the editor with this type of side-panel). They are both high quality images that illustrate different aspects of the subject (fetus vs. child). File:Anencephaly.jpg on the other hand does not really give anything that isn't already available, while the other images hold better when WP:GFFENSE is taken into account. CFCF (talk) 10:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The side image is excellent and belong in the lead IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm with you on that, it wasn't what the last question was about.

On many pages such as Human heart there are multiple images in the lead. When trying to add that here I am unable to do so, I suggest the side image along the illustration.

And then there is the question of removing File:Anencephaly.jpg from the article, which I believe should be done.

-- CFCF (talk) 11:57, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• I was able to update the infobox, with both images in the lead. Still awaiting response concerning suggestions of removing File:Anencephaly.jpg now that we have so many high-quality alternate images.CFCF (talk) 09:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

But yet you keep (over and over) moving the images. Stop it, it is getting disruptive. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

As far as discussion goes that was not what the dispute was about, I recommend restoring [2] as this page does not have moved images, but an updated infobox. CFCF (talk) 22:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

You have moved the images to the bottom again when they should be in the signs and symptoms section. The drawing is not as good as the side view and thus should go lower in the article IMO (ie were it was before). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Got edit-conflict while submitting the exact edit you made. I feel this has a good explanatory quality, but I still suggest File:Anencephaly.jpg be removed because it does not add to the article. CFCF (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The image is sort of fussy. And it does not really add anything the other two do not. I am neutral on this. Try a RfC on this question maybe. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)