Evidence for God from Science

Can't tell you how much it irks me to see this poor man having his vegetative state exploited for such an obvious hoax. It would be awful even if it wasn't being swallowed so credulously by the majority of media outlets.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8375326.stm

What makes you think it is a hoax? Here is the paper referred to by the story:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1986 ... dinalpos=1

And the neurologist's bio:

http://www.coma.ulg.ac.be/home/steven.html

Also, here's a video of the man in question:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8375326.stm

Again - what makes you think it is a hoax?

Jac3510 wrote:What makes you think it is a hoax? Here is the paper referred to by the story:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1986 ... dinalpos=1

And the neurologist's bio:

http://www.coma.ulg.ac.be/home/steven.html

Also, here's a video of the man in question:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8375326.stm

Again - what makes you think it is a hoax?

Look at the video in detail - the man is typing incredibly fast and is probably not even looking in the direction of the screen (if it appears so it is likely to be a subtle effect of the camera angle), whereas his carer is looking at the screen and, arguably, guiding his hand.

Perhaps hoax is the wrong word - I'm certainly not assuming malice on the part of his carer. Do some reading up about 'facilitated communication' and you will find that it was thoroughly discredited multiple times over a decade ago. That's partially why I'm so shocked that it has resurfaced as an alleged phenomenon, and that so many news organisations and medical personnel have been suckered in by it.

So question the communication, but there is no doubt that the man is conscious. You'll have to do a LOT more than offer your incredulity if you want your objection to be taken seriously. Maybe the very fact that the media has been "taken in" is prima facia evidence that this is real? Not to mention the study written by a highly qualified neurologist? Forgive me if I take his word over yours.

The question goes to your motivation. What makes you immediately jump to the conclusion--and use such a harsh word--as "hoax"? That seems to say a lot more about something going on in your mind than this guy's body, sir.

Sorry - crossed wires. I should have made it more clear that I was referring to the facilitated communication aspect (the one the media pounced on) as a hoax, rather than the genuine neurological aspect of tightening up the diagnoses of vegetative states vs minimally conscious ones (which could run the gamut of very, very small levels of consciousness, to full 'self-awareness').

My beef was with the presentation of this as a story along the lines of "nightmare of man trapped, fully aware, in body for decades", which will only add fuel to the pseudoscience of facilitated communication and, perhaps worse, give false hope to the families of those in horrifically comatose states.

which will only add fuel to the pseudoscience of facilitated communication

Fine, this I can live with. But you are aware, I imagine, that these brain scans at least provide the potential for some rudimentary form of communication? There are also cases of people who can answer basic yes/no questions by doing such things as looking up or looking down . . .

In any case, here's the major positive that comes out of this: if it is true that as much as 40% of comas are misdiagnosed, then we have a MAJOR moral imperative to pour research into the question as to how we can communicate with them. Perhaps you are right and the faciliated communication is bogus. I have no view on that as I've not read up on it and will defer to you on it as you are obviously better studied on it than I. But I'm sure you can also agree that, given these findings, we should put serious research into the question to give a real "hope to the families of those in horrifically comatose states." Yes, no?

Jac, I think the 2 of us are in agreement over this issue - but I probably came across as overly sceptical because I had such a reaction against the time-and-again debunked pseudoscience of facilitated communication rearing its head again.

Yes I agree that, not being vegetative, it's entirely possible that this man has the potential to be aware to some degree, possibly even to the extent of being fully aware that he is trapped in a paralysed body. I think that the fact he was diagnosed as vegetative in the first place reduces the likelihood of him being anything more than just slightly conscious, but I do think it's fantastic, absolutely fantastic, that we now have the hope of being able to reduce the number of misdiagnosed vegetative states. The implications for patient care in the future could be profound; I really wish the press had focused on this aspect, rather than being suckered in by the utter bunk. I guess I'm never going to make it big as a newspaper owner *sigh*

Yes, it does sound like we are. You should appreciate the AP's coverage, though:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_belgium_coma_recovery

Arthur Caplan, a bioethics professor at the University of Pennsylvania, said he is skeptical of Houben's ability to communicate after seeing video of his hand being moved along the keyboard.

"That's called 'facilitated communication,'" Caplan said. "That is ouija board stuff. It's been discredited time and time again. When people look at it, it's usually the person doing the pointing who's doing the messages, not the person they claim they are helping."

Caplan also said the statements Houben allegedly made with the computer seem unnatural for someone with such a profound injury and an inability to communicate for decades.

Tell you what - start a newspaper, and I'll subscribe. Hard to find one that doesn't do sensationalism . . .

Jac3510 wrote:Yes, it does sound like we are. You should appreciate the AP's coverage, though:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_belgium_coma_recovery

Arthur Caplan, a bioethics professor at the University of Pennsylvania, said he is skeptical of Houben's ability to communicate after seeing video of his hand being moved along the keyboard.

"That's called 'facilitated communication,'" Caplan said. "That is ouija board stuff. It's been discredited time and time again. When people look at it, it's usually the person doing the pointing who's doing the messages, not the person they claim they are helping."

Caplan also said the statements Houben allegedly made with the computer seem unnatural for someone with such a profound injury and an inability to communicate for decades.

Tell you what - start a newspaper, and I'll subscribe. Hard to find one that doesn't do sensationalism . . .

I'll make £100 a year from your subscription fees (the sole subscriber ).
I'm always grateful to have the internet - it's so nice to be able to sift through any number of news sources as well as fantastic specialist blogs, so you can sift the sensationalism out. Ahhh.

Off topic, but without national health care, what happens if an American falls into a coma?

So it turns out that (surprise surprise) the poor guy in the coma wasn't doing any communicating after all.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 37,00.html

At one point, Laureys, the neurologist, claimed that he had ruled out the possibility that it was actually the speech therapist doing the writing. But it turns out that his checks weren't quite thorough enough. Obtaining reliable results requires a rather protracted procedure.
...
Laureys has now carried out those tests, and his results hold that it wasn't Houben doing the writing after all. The tests determined that he doesn't have enough strength and muscle control in his right arm to operate the keyboard. In her effort to help the patient express himself, it would seem that the speech therapist had unwittingly assumed control. This kind of self-deception happens all the time when this method -- known as "facilitated communication" -- is used.

I wonder what Laureys next move will be, and if any of the media outlets will issue any kind of retraction or apology.

touchingcloth wrote:I wonder [...] if any of the media outlets will issue any kind of retraction or apology.

Retraction??? none will come unless there is threat of a lawsuit.

Harry12345 wrote:Off topic, but without national health care, what happens if an American falls into a coma?

He goes into the vegetable bin.

FL

Fürstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

touchingcloth wrote:I wonder [...] if any of the media outlets will issue any kind of retraction or apology.

Retraction??? none will come unless there is threat of a lawsuit.

I know. Galling, isn't it.

touchingcloth wrote:

Fürstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

touchingcloth wrote:I wonder [...] if any of the media outlets will issue any kind of retraction or apology.

Retraction??? none will come unless there is threat of a lawsuit.

I know. Galling, isn't it.

Galling? No Sir! That's just the way things work. Accept it and move on!

FL