More details are coming out about the Rom Houben case. This struck me hard. From the story:
Belgian doctors who treated him early on said that Rom had gone from a coma into a vegetative condition. Coma is a state of unconsciousness in which the eyes are closed and the patient can’t be roused, as if simply asleep. A vegetative state is a condition in which the eyes are open and can move, and the patient has periods of sleep and periods of wakefulness, but remains unconscious and unaware of him or herself or others. The patient can’t think, reason, respond, do anything on purpose, chew or swallow.
But Rom’s parents would not accept that he was comatose or vegetative.
His mother, Fina Houben, said in a telephone interview that they took him five times to the United States for tests. More searching finally got her in touch with Laureys, who put Houben through a PET scan that indicated he was conscious. The family and doctors then began trying to establish communication. A breakthrough came when he was able to indicate yes or no by slightly moving his foot to push a computer device placed there by Laureys’ team. Then came the spelling of words using his finger and a touch-screen attached to his wheelchair.
Gee, it’s a good thing they didn’t have an utterly intransigent judge saying “NO!” to every request for a PET scan and standing directly in the way of their never giving up hope.
November 24th, 2009 | 9:38 pm
Also a good thing that Belgium has a strong national health care system to keep him alive for 23 years, eh?
November 24th, 2009 | 10:11 pm
Not relevant. We have health care for everyone in that condition too, either private, Medicare, or Medicaid.
November 24th, 2009 | 11:28 pm
[...] the article here: Rom Houben Case: Even After 23 Years, Family Never Gave Up Belief … Share and [...]
November 25th, 2009 | 12:40 am
I’m very, very skeptical of the foot computer device and spelling words… nevertheless…
A patient can’t “think” or “reason”? Can that be definitively concluded with full confidence at all times from brain scans?
At the same time, Laureys is a little out there on the fringes of neuroscience and consciousness. The fact that Laureys can find “consciousness” while other Drs and scientists cannot, does not mean Mr. Houben is conscious. Laureys may be a little zealous in finding consciousness; he may or may not be factually wrong.
here is his work:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Laureys%20S%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstract
(check out “Life can be worth living in [LIS]“)
But does it matter? If we can’t definitively know what determines “consciousness” (I’d be surprised if a consensus on definition could be achieved) – can we, or should we, use that as a criteria for life or death? Should we err on the side caution? How should we then deal with the cost and burden of these issues? Is it ethical to try radical experiments on individuals like Mr. Houben in an effort to try and return their higher mental faculties and/or control – not knowing the outcome because it’s an experiment? What if they ‘awaken’ into extreme physical pain, yet still cannot move or cry out over their pain? Should they be on a constant morphine drip just in case? What if we are sustaining them in extreme pain and they can’t speak out and they would rather let nature take its course? Should people be required to state in writing how they want to be treated should they ever enter such a state? Are we ethically and legally WAY behind medical technology on such matters (we have the ability to accomplish feats before we’ve decided if they should be attempted in the first place)?
Because of these questions, I think it is dangerous to make these people poster children, one way or another, on these issues- as we may be wrong. Maybe Mr. Houben’s is a “vegetable” and maybe he has higher mental aptitude in place.
November 25th, 2009 | 12:31 pm
There are further problems with the Houben case.
Apparently he is being asked questions in English, but answering in Flemish.
Laureys is now under question, scientists and rationalists are going to be taking a much, much closer look at his work and claims.
November 25th, 2009 | 12:39 pm
Where is that reported, David?
November 25th, 2009 | 2:03 pm
This is almost certainly another case of fascilitated communication gone wrong. There is no proof this man is expressing his own thoughts, if he even has any. What usually happens is the “assistant” is controlling what is being written and not the disabled person; usually the assistant isn’t even consciously aware of what they are doing.
When this type of communication has been studied scientifically, it has been proven that it is not the disbled person who has been doing the “talking.” For example, the assistant will be shown a picture and the disabled person will be shown another – neither knows what the other has seen. The assistant will always type what they have seen, not what the disabled person has seen. They need take part in an objective study before I’ll believe it.
November 25th, 2009 | 2:47 pm
There most certainly is. The PET scans and how he came to be communicative. Boy, talk about not wanting to see!
November 25th, 2009 | 3:14 pm
“Rom’s parents would not accept that he was comatose OR vegetative.” Well then, what exactly was it that kept him “out to lunch” for 23 years? Judging from the picture I saw of Houben, complete with facial grimace and claw-like grasp, it looks like Terri Schiavo vegetating all over again. The true believers claimed amazing things about her too, although the bit with the foot-operated ouija board is a gimmick they seem to have neglected. When, if ever, can we expect to see some independent proof of this amazing medical turnaround?
November 25th, 2009 | 3:27 pm
That is really a bigoted comment.
November 25th, 2009 | 3:44 pm
The reporter says “he understands English, but types his answers in Flemish”
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/11/24/coma.man.belgium/index.html?eref=igoogle_cnn
I’m skeptical. My experience with foreign languages is that it’s easier to write in the foreign language than speak it or follow it when spoken – unless highly fluent.
They should have a non-English speaking Flemish “facilitator”, faciliate and Mr. Houben should be requested to answer in English. It will be gibberish to the Flemish “facilitator” but Houben and the reporter will understand. Alternatively, you could ear-plug the “facilitator”, as long as the ‘facilitator” doesn’t need to hear (why would they?)
I want to be crystal clear – I do not want to see Mr. Houben cut off and terminated for death (if he previously stated prior to the accident that should he ever become “vegetative” he would want to be let go, that’s a different issue). He is human and he is alive. His brain stem is functioning at least at the most very, very basic, fundamental level. His case is sad and tragic; I want him to recover. I want him to be able to communicate with us so we can help him, make him more comfortable, etc. But I’m not sure the reality is that he can communicate with us.
I don’t think we should rally around Laurey’s claims as if the proof is in the pudding. I don’t see it. I’m not convinced he certainly is capable of communication or any higher cognitive function. But maybe he is. I also think it’s irrelevant.
Questions are emerging from the science and philosophical community:
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=1286
and
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34132340
Scientists don’t forget names and work; Laureys will be under scrutiny for some time.
November 25th, 2009 | 7:09 pm
HistoryWriter: “Judging from the picture I saw of Houben, complete with facial grimace and claw-like grasp, it looks like Terri Schiavo vegetating all over again.”
Yes, except this time he was (fortunately) given the chance to live that she was denied.
November 26th, 2009 | 7:54 am
Wesley: “Bigoted”? Has it come to the point that you accuse those who disagree with you of “bigotry”? Want to explain your remark?
November 26th, 2009 | 11:15 am
Your denigration of people with profound disabilities and using what people with disabilities consider to be epithets and terminology as hurtful as the worst racial slurs.
December 3rd, 2009 | 10:59 am
David,
Having studied French for several years, my experience with foreign language is this: one can comprehend, but have trouble responding in kind; one can be better at writing than speaking; or both — these things are not necessarily contradictory.
Many non-native English speakers, even after they become fluent, still find it easier to count in the native language (as my good friend from Turkey reminded me just recently).
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact