I know the WHO says this, they were cited earlier in this thread. But it is not widely accepted, at least not yet. It is not even in the dictionaries I looked at and it goes counter to long established definitions. That is all I am saying.
The primary reason the WHO decided to change their definition was precisely to help make it more widely accepted. When we use different terminology to talk about the same cause of harm merely because they have different outcomes, we distract from prevention of harm.
Someone could be drowning and not die. Someone who has drowned would be dead.
No, it's like poison. Humans can can survive food poisoning or die from food poisoning. Either way they have been poisoned.
Humans can survive drowning or die from drowning. Either way they have drowned.
The verb of what happened to them is defined by the experience, not by the final outcome. The fact that many people can now survive harmful experiences - with the assistance of medical intervention - does not undo the harmful experience.
Example: two boys drowned in a local water park, one in the Summer of 2016, one in the Summer of 2017. The incidents were very similar - the wave pool at the same water park. Both were not properly supervised by the adults with them; neither wore a life jacket. Both were pulled out of the water by lifeguards and given CPR and rushed to the hospital. The first boy survived with extreme brain damage. The second boy did not survive. They BOTH drowned.
