Talk:Patrick Bouvier Kennedy

Untitled

Article listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion Apr 24 to Apr 30 2004, consensus was to keep. Discussion:

Delete. This page cannot be expanded because all it talks about is the biography of someone who died in infancy. It never will be able to go past a stub. 66.32.142.19 21:54, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• Keep, certainly. You want to delete valid information on a famous person just because he died in infancy? It already is more than a stub by most people's standards, anyway. Everyking 23:04, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. It's more than a stub. Information is valid and encyclopedic. It could equally well be part of the article on John F. Kennedy or an article in itself, and at this point it seems to me to be too big to fit comfortably into John F. Kennedy. He would not be encyclopedic were his father not John F. Kennedy, but his father was John F. Kennedy. Dpbsmith 00:23, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Even in Australia, this poor little guy held the front page for two days. That's pretty famous IMO. While you can be encyclopedic without being famous, I think that if you're that famous, you're ipso facto encyclopedic. And as has been said, it's far more than a stub already. Andrewa 01:29, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - obviously encyclopedic. →Raul654 01:57, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. jengod 00:26, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, encyclopedic. Average Earthman 11:38, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Historically significant and encyclopedic. - Lucky 6.9 16:33, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Anyone's who's definitely famous automatically qualifies for a Wikipedia article. Wiwaxia 04:25, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Just because he died doesn't mean there isn't more information about him than just the facts of his short life...what about a cultural history of Patrick, how his famous parents reacted to his death, how (if) the nation did...etc. 152.42.147.64 07:08, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Keep for the same reason 9/11 victims and Walt Disney's grandmother should be kept.

anthony (see warning)

• Keep. There is no valid reason to delete this, and the page is good enough. Falcon 01:06, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. There is no valid reason for an article on a baby who lived only a few days. There are no other instances of such articles. His birth and death did not affect history or national politics. It is not as though he was heir to a monarchy and his death resulted in a change in succession!203.184.41.226 (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

JUST GET IMAGES FOR INFOBOX ON GOOGLE. WHY ARE YOU SO LAZY 139.193.232.104 (talk) 11:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

End discussion

Who is Arabella?

Article speaks of a stillborn sister, Arabella, that was buried with JFK and Patrick in Arlington in Dec. 6, 1963, and the list places her after Patrick. So does this mean that JFK and Jackie were expecting another child at the time of JFK's assassination? Is it factual and is it in correct chronological order?

The stillbirth in question occurred on 23 August 1956. According to her biographers, Jacqueline Kennedy was pregnant five times. Her first pregnancy resulted in an early miscarriage in 1955; her second was the girl who was to be named Arabella, stillborn on 23 August 1956; followed by Caroline (1957), John (1960), and Patrick (1963). - Nunh-huh 06:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Named After

I'm wondering about the accuracy of the statement that Edward Kennedy named his son Patrick after JFK's and Jackie's infant son. Patrick Kennedy was Edward Kennedy's grandfather - perhaps that's who he named his son after? Especially considering that "Joseph" was also the middle name of the grandfather and does not match the middle name "Bouvier" 165.189.169.190 (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Smoking, birth

Does anyone know if Jacqueline Kennedy's cigarette smoking would have caused the respiratory problem? And/or does anyone know why the C-section was done so early? Did Jackie go into labor early or was there something else? jengod (talk) 03:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This is an article?

Per Talk:Malia Obama, Wikipedia doesn't have an article about a 12-year-old daughter of the current head of state of the United States, yet it has an article about Kennedy's son who lived for two days about five decades ago. The only things that can be said about him is how he was born and how he died. Everything else is really about his parents. This "article" should be turned into a redirect. Otherwise, we could just as well have an article about his stilborn sister - the amount of information would be the same. The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (talk) 19:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of this subject is taking place at Talk:Family of Barack Obama#Patrick Bouvier Kennedy vs. Malia Obama.

I do not think that the issue is whether there is an article about another president's child. The main point is that only the most significant children of US presidents have Wikipedia pages. Patrick Kennedy has to rank as one of the least significant. Therefore it is hard to justify a separate article on him.Royalcourtier (talk) 08:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

ALL children are significant to their parents; the son of a future President and his wife would be especially so. EPISCOPALIAN (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The question isn’t the importance of a child to the parents, the question is the notability of a deceased two-day-old to having a standalone page. LovelyLillith (talk) 20:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Succession box

I agree with whoever removed the "Kennedy children succession box", so I also removed it from the John F. Kennedy Jr. article. It was not in the Caroline Kennedy article anyway, but even if it was, three people does not seem like enough to have a "succession box", two definitely is not enough, and by the time I removed it from the John Jr. article, there was only one. Neutron (talk) 21:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Premature

Surely being born 5 and a half weeks early makes him premature, not his weight!203.184.41.226 (talk) 21:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Significance of death

I doubt very much that this one baby's death "did in time help spark interest in research on prematurity and led to innovations in the care of premature infants". Is there any evidence for that claim?Royalcourtier (talk) 08:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The statement you "doubt very much" is referenced. If you follow the citation and read the abstract of the article cited, you will see the following: "On August 7, 1963, Patrick Bouvier Kennedy, infant son of President and Mrs. John F. Kennedy, was born prematurely at 33 weeks gestation. Two days later, Patrick died of the most common complication of premature birth, respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). Occurring just 4 years after Avery and Mead first reported an association between RDS and surfactant deficiency, the death of Patrick Kennedy inspired aggressive research into the cause and treatment of RDS and served as a catalyst in the development of regionalized neonatal intensive care." - Nunh-huh 12:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

references

The following was removed:

"Patrick Kennedy's death, eclipsed a few months later by his father's assassination, did in time help spark interest in research on prematurity and led to innovations in the care of premature infants, which gave rise to the pediatrics subspecialty neonatology."

With the edit summary:

"tidbit not supported by citation"

While the article cited reads:

"On August 7, 1963, Patrick Bouvier Kennedy, infant son of President and Mrs. John F. Kennedy, was born prematurely at 33 weeks gestation. Two days later, Patrick died of the most common complication of premature birth, respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). Occurring just 4 years after Avery and Mead1 first reported an association between RDS and surfactant deficiency, the death of Patrick Kennedy inspired aggressive research into the cause and treatment of RDS and served as a catalyst in the development of regionalized neonatal intensive care. Research efforts led to the first report in 1980 of exogenous surfactant replacement therapy (SRT) to treat RDS,2 and culminated with US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in 1990 of the first exogenous surfactant drug."

Which seems to be reasonable support of the "tidbit".

So I've restored it. - Nunh-huh 06:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Clicking the Surfactant link, it says nothing about Kennedy. It is original research to say that Kennedy caused research. There is no evidence of increased federal funding of research, no evidence of a law called "Kennedy's Law", and nearly 2 decades after the death for the first report. In contrast, after AIDS was discovered, reports came out the same year. Furthermore, Kennedy was at most a celebrity with the disease but it wasn't even named after him, like Lou Gehrig Disease named after Lou.

In addition, a search of surfactant replacement therapy in scientific journals does not show Kennedy caused research. Even if one source wrote it, it might have been hyperbole and not true.

As tragic as Kennedy's death is, there is no justification for original research in Wikipedia. Vanguard10 (talk) 02:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/133/1/156 No mention of Kennedy

Yes, no one want original research here. Which is why I gave you a reference (the original one, the one that you removed) and even quoted from it for you. You seem not to have read it. Here's a shorter version: "the death of Patrick Kennedy inspired aggressive research into the cause and treatment of RDS and served as a catalyst in the development of regionalized neonatal intensive care"

See also: “Patrick's death was eclipsed a few months later by Kennedy's assassination in Dallas and it is barely remembered today. But at the time, it sparked interest in research on prematurity.[…] This and other advances gave rise to a new specialty – neonatology.”

And: "The death of the presidential baby a half a century ago today was a critical event, according to historians, one that sparked medical advances that did for the survival of preemies what Sputnik did for the space race." But it was the presidential spotlight that would ultimately transform the field, giving birth to neonatology and the modern neonatal intensive care unit, or NICU. The Kennedy baby's death put a new focus on diseases of the newborn and resulted in increased funding for research by the National Institutes of Health, according to Dr. Suhas M. Nafday, director of Newborn Services at the Children's Hospital at Montefiore Medical Center in New York. "This event energized the neonatal researchers into action to look for an effective management of RDS," he said.

I await your source stating that that's wrong. Because otherwise the original "research" is yours. -- Nunh-huh 17:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your research. It proves that inclusion in Wikipedia is hyperbole. True, Kennedy was a celebrity patient with a disease much like Mrs. Mitt Romney is a celebrity patient with MS and the late Farrah Fawcett was a celebrity patient with anal cancer.

1. The Stevens (Chest Journal) is a dead link. 2. The Lawrence Altman does not say that Kennedy caused the treatment to be discovered. 3. The James ABC News article proves that Kennedy was NOT the cause of treatment to be discovered. It says

"Delivoria-Papadopoulos was about to abandon her research, but in January 1963, seven months before the Kennedy baby was born, she used her ventilator on a 34-week preemie who'd suffered cardio-pulmonary arrest. The girl survived, so she presented the case at the Society for Pediatric Research in New Jersey.

"By time Patrick Bouvier had been born, we already had six survivors, because we had been intervening quicker and not waiting until their death bed," she said.

and also

The second breakthrough came from Children's Hospital itself, but was not implemented until decades later.

Dr. Mary Ellen Avery, the first woman to be appointed Children's Hospital physician in chief, made the crucial discovery that these babies lacked a foaming soap-like coating in their lungs -- surfactant, which develops in the lungs around 34 weeks in utero.

Avery, who died in 2012, published 23 papers from 1959 to 1965 on hyaline membrane disease, a condition marked by a gasping inhale and the inability to breathe out.

solution

The solution might be to mention in the Kennedy article that "Around the time of Kennedy's death, there were several articles in the press about the disease that Kennedy had". That would be accurate. Vanguard10 (talk) 02:55, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

The fact that an individual Wikipedian (you) feels the reliable sources are hyperbolic in their characterizations is not a reason to substitute that individaul Wikipedian's assessment for that of the reliable sources. That's not the way Wikipedia works. - Nunh-huh 03:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

The references that you provide all show that research was done years before Kennedy was born. His illness did not cause research to be done. It was already in place. Even the Wikipedia article on surfactant doesn't say Kennedy caused its development. I have already suggested a first draft on how to honor Kennedy (even though Wikipedia is not a memorial) but still be encyclopedic. Open to other ideas and compromises.Vanguard10 (talk) 03:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

The solution is to quote the cited sources. - Nunh-huh 03:16, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

You seem not to understand the sources, which is unfortunate. The research was NOT done years before Kennedy died. - Nunh-huh 03:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

See above. Avery wrote papers starting in 1959, long before Kennedy's birth. Before Kennedy died, 6 infants survived with the new treatment. Kennedy was mainly the celebrity that called attention to the disease. Vanguard10 (talk) 04:22, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

The Stevens/Sinkin article is downloadable in several places. I'm surprised you're having such difficulty finding it. One such place is [1]. - Nunh-huh 03:21, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

And Wikipedia articles are not to "honor" anybody. I don't know where you would get that idea. Wikipedia articles are to inform the reader. And that includes informing them when an event was influential in directing research towards certain ends. Which this event was, as demonstrated by multiple reliable sources.- Nunh-huh 03:29, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your link. How did you get it? Are you a subscriber to Chest? When I click on to the link, the article doesn't show up. When you provided a link in your reply, it was a different URL.

I do not see multiple reliable sources. I also do not see any documentation other than the Chest article, which they did not document but mentioned it as opinion. In controversial Wikipedia articles (like Trump and Obama), there has been a tendency to find one source that says what someone wants and then they add it to the article, which causes chaos. While it's nice to honor someone like Kennedy, I cannot see any documentation that his death actually caused increased funding and research.

Would you like to suggest compromise wording? I have done so already. Vanguard10 (talk) 04:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

You choose not to see these multiple sources, but they're right here. It is not controversial to include cited information. What is controversial is for you to place your opinion above the cited sources. When you find a source that says, "Patrick Kennedy's death did not inspire further research into hyaline membrane disease", then we'll have a controversy. But that would be addressed by quoting both sources, not by censoring one side out. The sources presented here say precisely what you purport they don't: "his death actually caused increased funding and research." - Nunh-huh 04:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I looked up Neonatology. It started in the 1800's. There is no mention of Kennedy. This leads me to believe that Kennedy did not cause the field to start. He was merely a celebrity that had the disease. That could very well be mentioned in the article. Vanguard10 (talk) 04:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but your interpretation is simply wrong. The first American newborn intensive care unit was opened at Yale University in 1965. The first examination of the Sub-Board of Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine of the American Board of Pediatrics and the first meeting of the Perinatal Section of the American Academy of Pediatrics were held in 1975. Try reading this: [2], particularly the part on the importance of Kennedy: "More than any other single event, the death of this infant served to ignite public and medical awareness to the need for neonatal intensive care and soon led to the establishment of NICUs around the country." I'd be fine using that source and quoting it. - Nunh-huh 04:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Yale is not in Massachusetts. The American Academy of Pediatrics website does not credit Kennedy for causing the Perinatal Section to be created. I do see a compromise wording coming up. Do you?04:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Of course Yale is not in Massachusetts. How on earth do you think that is relevant? - Nunh-huh 05:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

compromise wording

We have to use our own judgment on what to edit otherwise Wikipedia would have full of undue weight material. If not, then under Trump, one could say (paraphrased) "Trump is insane <reference-Speech of Kim Jong Un>". There is no data that I can see that Congress sharply increased research funding and most medical research is government funded, with a little being from drug companies and small grants.

With that in mind, I propose yet another compromise wording because I do want an amicable resolution.

Kennedy's death ignited public awareness of neonatal intensive care <reference http://static.abbottnutrition.com/cms-prod/anhi.org/img/Nurse%20Currents%20NICU%20History%20June%202010.pdf (this is a corporate newsletter but it may be ok for now>. Vanguard10 (talk) 04:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Alternative compromise wording is Although Kennedy's death is barely remembered today <reference provided by Nunh-huh above>, his death ignited public aware of neonatal intensive care at the time of his death <reference - abbott nutrition link> Vanguard10 (talk) 04:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

No. You seem to want to do primary analysis of data. That's not what we do here. We state the cited opinions of reliable secondary sources. Your inability to find data from Congress on spending isn't relevant. So what do the sources say? They say: "the death of Patrick Kennedy inspired aggressive research into the cause and treatment of RDS and served as a catalyst in the development of regionalized neonatal intensive care." The death "sparked interest in research on prematurity" and it "was a critical event, according to historians, one that sparked medical advances that did for the survival of preemies what Sputnik did for the space race". According to Dr. Suhas M. Nafday, "this event energized the neonatal researchers into action to look for an effective management of RDS." "More than any other single event, the death of this infant served to ignite public and medical awareness to the need for neonatal intensive care and soon led to the establishment of NICUs around the country." - Nunh-huh 05:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Too much opinion and that becomes undue weight and loss of accuracy. Wikipedia says that not only to verify but also accuracy. It is touching and a great story if one believes that Kennedy caused this miraculous cure but that simply isn't true. It is accurate and true that it increased public awareness. If Kennedy's death caused all this research and a neonatology specialty, then there would be far more sources rather than just one peripheral mention of one guy's opinion.

Part of WP is compromise so you're welcome to suggest alternate wording.Vanguard10 (talk) 05:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Opinion is what we do here. We quote sources so the opinions are attributed. I think we're at a dead end here, so I will ask for the third opinion people to chime in. - Nunh-huh 05:38, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we're at a dead end. In fact, I am warming up to you. If you seek 3rd opinion, that could be interpreted as canvassing. That could inject intense drama. I seek resolution with you. Vanguard10 (talk) 05:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

No, that's not canvassing, and I've already asked for it. - Nunh-huh 05:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

One danger is that the Trump article would then say Trump is insane. The source is Kim Jong Un. No source says "Trump is not insane". The Wikipedia article would then say "Trump is the 45th President of the United States and is insane. See. Vanguard10 (talk) 05:33, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure sources that say Trump is sane are available. - Nunh-huh 05:38, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think so. Let me look. Vanguard10 (talk) 05:40, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I found an article. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/book-party/wp/2017/09/22/is-trump-mentally-ill-or-is-america-psychiatrists-weigh-in/ Nobody says he is sane. So the Wikipedia article, should it read "Trump is the 45th President of the United States and insane (footnote: Kim Jong Un, also Senator Jack Reed in the Washington Post article "I think he's crazy".). Vanguard10 (talk) 05:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Of course somebody says he's sane. [3]. Let's give this a rest until we hear a 3rd opinion. - Nunh-huh 05:48, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Is Fox News reliable source, ha ha ha ha. Yes, says Trump. No, says Hillary. Vanguard10 (talk) 05:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Summary of possible wordings if there is drama and public comment sought

Option 1 On August 7, 1963, Patrick Bouvier Kennedy, infant son of President and Mrs. John F. Kennedy, was born prematurely at 33 weeks gestation. Two days later, Patrick died of the most common complication of premature birth, respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). Occurring just 4 years after Avery and Mead1 first reported an association between RDS and surfactant deficiency, the death of Patrick Kennedy inspired aggressive research into the cause and treatment of RDS and served as a catalyst in the development of regionalized neonatal intensive care. Research efforts led to the first report in 1980 of exogenous surfactant replacement therapy (SRT) to treat RDS,2 and culminated with US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in 1990 of the first exogenous surfactant drug

• has problems This is factually wrong. It was not approved in 1990. Maybe the Timothy Stevens is senile. It was approved in 1989. [[4]]. Also research efforts did not culminate as Timothy Stevens states. Lucinactant was approved in 2012.Vanguard10 (talk) 06:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Option 2 On August 7, 1963, Patrick Bouvier Kennedy, infant son of President and Mrs. John F. Kennedy, was born prematurely at 33 weeks gestation. Two days later, Patrick died of the most common complication of premature birth, respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). Occurring just 4 years after Avery and Mead1 first reported an association between RDS and surfactant deficiency, the death of Patrick Kennedy inspired aggressive research into the cause and treatment of RDS and served as a catalyst in the development of regionalized neonatal intensive care. Research efforts led to the first report in 1980 of exogenous surfactant replacement therapy (SRT) to treat RDS,2 and culminated with US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in 1990 of the first exogenous surfactant drug according to Timothy Stevens.

• OK Attributes it as an opinion and not gospel.Vanguard10 (talk) 06:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Option 3 Although Kennedy's death is barely remembered today <reference provided by Nunh-huh above>, his death ignited public aware of neonatal intensive care at the time of his death <reference - abbott nutrition link> Vanguard10 (talk) 05:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• Nice summary supported by references Vanguard10 (talk) 06:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Option 3 could replace the intro sentence you removed, so the intro would end with "Three months later, his death was eclipsed by his father's assassination, but, more than any other single event, the death of this infant served to ignite public and medical awareness to the need for neonatal intensive care and soon led to the establishment of NICUs around the country.<footnote>

and Option 2, edited down (the first sentence would be repetitive) could replace the paragraph you removed in the place you removed it from: Occurring just 4 years after Avery and Mead <footnote> first reported an association between hyaline membrane disease and surfactant deficiency, the death of Patrick Kennedy inspired aggressive research into the cause and treatment of the disease, now known as infant respiratory distress syndrome (IRSD) and served as a catalyst in the development of regionalized neonatal intensive care. Research efforts led to the first report in 1980 of exogenous surfactant replacement therapy (SRT) to treat RDS,2 and culminated with US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in 1990 of the first exogenous surfactant drug <Timothy Stevens footnote>.

Also acceptable would be this version of option 3 in the intro: "Three months later, his death was eclipsed by his father's assassination, but, according to Dr. Suhas M. Nafday, "this event energized the neonatal researchers into action to look for an effective management of RDS."<footnote> - Nunh-huh 06:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Fourth opinion

I see that there is not that much dispute. Option 2 are sort of agreed upon by Vanguard 10 and Nunh-huh and Option 3 is very similar between Vanguard 10 and Nunh-huh versions. Googling some of the terms, like NICU, it seems like Patrick Bouvier Kennedy is not cited as a factor so, in the big picture, he might not have played such a large role. On the other hand, there is the citation noted in the very long discussion.

In terms of editing cautiously, the 2 option number 3 is the most neutral and most likely to be factually accurate. AGrandeFan (talk) 18:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

A conflict and contradiction that I see is the phrase

Patrick's death was eclipsed a few months later by Kennedy's assassination in Dallas and it is barely remembered today. But at the time, it sparked interest in research on prematurity.[…] This and other advances gave rise to a new specialty – neonatology.

versus

"Three months later, his death was eclipsed by his father's assassination, but, according to Dr. Suhas M. Nafday, "this event energized the neonatal researchers

because this shows that there were neonatal researchers before Kennedy's birth. That suggests that Patrick Bouvier Kennedy did not cause the creation of a new specialty. That is not surprising because creation of a specialty is probably not the doings of one person. Even if someone is called the Father of Surgery or the Father of Obstetrics and Gynecology, probably it was the work of many to start a specialty. AGrandeFan (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

There were researchers into the diseases of neonates before 1963, but there was no specialty designated "neonatology". We call those people "neonatal" researchers only in retrospect, in the same way you might call someone who researched the diseases of children before the medical specialty of pediatrician existed a pediatric researcher. The small change in option 2 I suggested (RDS to hyaline membrane disease) is needed for accuracy, as Avery and Mead didn't write about RDS, but hyaline membrane disease; the renaming took place well after their paper. - Nunh-huh 19:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you both! This is certainly a learning experience and not like those edit war battles that one often sees in Wikipedia! Look what I found!

Neonatology, the term, was used in 1960 so Kennedy did not cause it to be created. See "In 1960, the terms “neonatology” and “neonatologist” were introduced. Thereafter, an increasing number of pediatricians devoted themselves to full-time neonatology." from Pediatric Research (2005) 58, 799–815; doi:10.1203/01.PDR.0000151693.46655.66 The Evolution of Neonatology, Alistair G S Philip [[5]]. I am starting to think that Kennedy was a high profile case early in the field's growth.

I also see that the first US NICU was in 1922, years before Jacqueline Kennedy, the mother was born. " The first neonatal intensive care units did not even appear in American hospitals until 1922;" from http://www.nicuawareness.org/blog/a-brief-history-of-advances-in-neonatal-care

Therefore, I am leaning towards option 3 with ideas from Nuhn-huh. Vanguard10 (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

This would be exactly like Nuhn-huh's idea and reads "Three months later, his death was eclipsed by his father's assassination, but, according to Dr. Suhas M. Nafday, "this event energized the neonatal researchers into action to look for an effective management of RDS."<reference>.

I suggest this be placed in the Legacy Section so the entire section reads (+/- minor changes)... "Three months later, his death was eclipsed by his father's assassination, but, according to Dr. Suhas M. Nafday, "this event energized the neonatal researchers into action to look for an effective management of HMD, later named RDS."<footnote> (Next paragraph) The First Lady and the President were deeply affected by the death and it also affected their marriage. Upon their departure from Otis Air Force Base, the couple – seldom publicly affectionate – were seen holding hands. Secret Service agent Clint Hill recalled the couple having "a distinctly closer relationship" that was visible following Patrick's death. Press secretary Pierre Salinger believed that while the President and First Lady had been brought closer by the White House, even more so were they by the passing of their last child.[11] Vanguard10 (talk) 20:28, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

That seems reasonable +/- small changes (I'd like to spell out HMD, RDS,etc.). But there remains what goes into the intro, as the intro must reflect the contents of the article (and help to contextualize why there is an article at all). The final sentence of the intro should be something like the actual sources say: The death "inspired aggressive research into the cause and treatment of RDS and served as a catalyst in the development of regionalized neonatal intensive care." - Nunh-huh 22:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with spelling out HMD, etc. As far as the lede, is it really necessary? I think not necessary because the lede doesn't have to cover every point. Currently, it doesn't cover the c-section, the part that JFK kept asking "is the baby going to be retarded?", hyperbaric oxygen, and the reports that the parents were closer later. I don't want to be too picky but the aggressive research part is not clear. Is it that there was research into aggressive treatment? If they mean a lot of research, that is prolific research or increased funding of research. I think one problem is the guy who said the quote wasn't speaking precisely or thinking it completely through. We're 98% of the way to finishing for it, I believe. We might as well get it right. Vanguard10 (talk) 01:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Per the discussion above, I put the quote in that Nuhn-huh wrote. Don't mean to be hasty but I think there is a consensus worked out. Vanguard10 (talk) 02:05, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the lede is supposed to at least touch upon all salient points. JFK's worries aren't salient, but the fact that the "Kennedy baby" is to hyaline membrane disease what Lou Gehrig is to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis is. If you, for example, search the New York Times database for "hyaline membrane disease", the vast majority of article will set its context by alluding in some way to Patrick Kennedy. So I don't think quoting from our source is in any way excessive. 'The death "inspired aggressive research into the cause and treatment of RDS and served as a catalyst in the development of regionalized neonatal intensive care."' could be streamlined, I suppose, into something like "The death inspired research into respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) and was a catalyst in the development of regionalized neonatal intensive care". So with that emendation I think we're set. , , , , - Nunh-huh 02:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I'll stick something in the lede. I think we're done for now. Vanguard10 (talk) 02:22, 15 October 2017 (UTC) Oops, I just did that. I added the correct (non-dead) Stevens link so others can find it. - Nunh-huh 02:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

There was an edit conflict and I was trying to put in a better summary of the article. You put in something that might be factually wrong.

My suggestion for the lede: The Kennedy infant's death brought publicity to hyaline membrane disease and energized the neonatal researchers of hyaline membrane disease.

Your suggestion of "Three months later, his death was eclipsed by his father's assassination, but inspired research into respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) and was a catalyst in the development of regionalized neonatal intensive care." maybe factually wrong because it inspired the public maybe but research was being done before Kennedy. In addition, there were NICU as early as 1922. Instead of regionalized, there are actually MORE NICU's and in small and large cities, not just a few regional centers. One problem is that some of these people spew their mouths like tweets but are not factually accurate. In Wikipedia, we want to verify but that verify not true essay mentions that we strive for accuracy. That is why we update the Las Vegas shooting number of injured and don't list the previous numbers (or say that Trump is insane - per Kim Jong Un).

We're almost there, just one sentence in the lede left. I didn't change the lede in the article because we're both not at each other's throat, like sometimes happens in WP. Vanguard10 (talk) 02:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

The statement is not wrong, and it has the further benefit of actually occurring in a reliable source. You seem to be jumping to the conclusion that "inspired" means "initiated" (and it doesn't). Something can inspire research even if there was previous research! Still, there's no problem with rewording it, I suppose, so others are not left with the same (wrong) impression. Something like "The Kennedy infant's death brought hyaline membrane disease (HMD) into the public conciousness and inspired further research." I’d leave the reference in so this particular song and dance doesn't have to be rewaltzed. - Nunh-huh 02:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Don't be discouraged. This long discussion has been very productive! I now see that 2 years ago, someone else on the talk page had similar doubts so this detailed discussion will be helpful for possibly many years. I've put your text in the article's lede. You deserve a barnstar! Vanguard10 (talk) 03:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Barnstars for our fourth opinion helpers! - Nunh-huh 03:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

3O Response: Whoever put this on 3o in the wrong venue. May I suggest wp:drn?38.99.114.115 (talk) 00:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Odd, the responders from 3o were just fine with helping. And we hardly need DRN, what with there being no active disputes. Thanks, though, for your thoughts. -Nunh-huh 02:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

---

Citation for Neonatology article

Berger TM, Fontana M, Stocker M (2013). "The journey towards lung protective respiratory support in preterm neonates". Neonatology. 104 (4): 265–74. doi:10.1159/000354419. PMID 24107385.

Kablammo (talk) 00:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Dates are wrong!

This article has many inaccuracies! Patrick was born and died a few years before President Kennedy died. He was not born after the president's death! Get you information corrected beforehand. 2600:6C56:7A08:31C:F10D:F991:EFF4:C29C (talk) 09:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

No, he was born and died less than a year before John was killed, as the article says; it did at the time of your comment too. No where does it say or imply he was born after Kennedy was assassinated. WP Ludicer (talk) 08:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)