http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091123/ap_on_he_me/eu_belgium_coma_recoveryMom: Son in coma heard everything for 23 years

BRUSSELS – A man who emerged from what doctors thought was a vegetative state says he was fully conscious for 23 years but could not respond because he was paralyzed, his mother said Monday.

Rom Houben, 46, had a car crash in 1983 and doctors thought he had sunk into a coma. His family continued to believe their son was conscious and sought further medical advice.

Professor Steven Laureys of Belgium's Coma Science Group realized that the diagnosis was wrong and taught Houben how to communicate through a special keyboard, said Dr. Audrey Vanhaudenhuyse, who is on Laureys' team.

Rom used the device to tell a reporter for the German magazine Der Spiegel that: "I screamed but there was nothing to hear."

"You have to imagine yourself lying in bed wanting to speak and move but unable to do so — while in your head you are OK," Vanhaudenhuyse said. "It was extremely difficult for him and he showed a lot of anger, which is normal since he was very frustrated," she said.

The case came to light after Laureys published a study in the journal BMC Neurology this year showing that about four out of ten patients with consciousness disorders are wrongly diagnosed as being a vegetative state. Houben, although not specifically mentioned, was part of the study.It makes you wonder how many "comatose" people are out there being kept alive at $10K per day, but really only being tortured because Christians won't let them die.

oh yes. GD the evil Christians for placing value on human life. What is wrong with these people? We should definitely be killing all people in comas. Also, why not kill cripples, mutes, blind people and everyone over 70. WTF, think of the money we would save on healt care. It would be like a nazi utopia.

I'm not real clear on what you could do if you could determine that someone was still conscious inside their head. We might be close to being able to detect conscious thought and that would definitely clear this issue up. But even so, what do you do for someone that's got the ability to be conscious but can't communicate at all? Is it more humane to let them go or let them live? I have no clue.

I mean, we have no indication what this guy wanted, did he want to die rather than be cut off from communicating with everyone for 23 years? Or was he screaming to express that he didn't want to die? He was really lucky to be able to use a special keyboard but what if he wasn't?

But even so, what do you do for someone that's got the ability to be conscious but can't communicate at all? Is it more humane to let them go or let them live? I have no clue.Do you really need to ask that question? Would you want to lie in bed 23 years paralyzed, unable to do anything but think, and powerless to end your own suffering?

Experiments with sensory deprivation on humans show that they begin to show adverse psychological effects within hours, and literally go crazy within a couple of days. Imagine it for years.

It's simply torture, and we should not be in the habit of torturing people based on some archaic Christian notion that euthanasia is bad.

It doesn't say he was sensory deprived, just that he couldn't communicate or control his body in anyway. It isn't like solitary confinement since presumably you have people fussing around you, touching you, if you're real lucky maybe even talking to you. You just can't respond back.

I suppose it'd be something like being severely autistic except you can't move. A lot of people have been very surprised to find out they severely autistic can think, communicate very well but they have to have special devices in order to do so.

So, would I want to die or could I compose the great novel I always wanted to write while I was in this state? Hmmm... It'd be a pity if I couldn't share it with anyone.

Here's more info about how they figured out he was still "in there".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/24/rom-houben-coma-doctor-mother

It doesn't say he was sensory deprived,It may not be sensory deprivation per se in this particular case, but the fact is, to remain sane your brain needs a minimum stimulus. People in solitary confinement can go insane even though they are not technically sensory deprived, because their brain attempts to compensate for the lack of stimulus by inventing its own (hallucinations). That's why prisoners even in the SHU can only be locked up 23 hours per day.

Why is it that we're not allowed to torture serial killers, but encouraged to torture sick people?

It's not even solitary confinement.

I guess we need to hear from him what he thinks about the experience. Would it have been better to be dead? For myself I'm not sure I can answer that question, I can't even begin to answer it for someone else.

aybe we'll be able to intervene earlier if this neurologist has figured out how to see if self-awareness is there and communicate with folks like this sooner. Then we can get some idea of what their wishes are.

Hmm, I don't see anywhere saying he was on life support. No reason to pull the plug. But, ya, I bet that one had to suck just laying there.

Hmm, I don't see anywhere saying he was on life support. No reason to pull the plug.Not in this case, but I was making a more general observation.

Countless people are being forced to live on the premise that they're unconscious. I wonder how many of them are actually being tortured, silently, with no way to communicate or end their suffering?

No thanks to the Christians, of course, who make every effort to forbid people to die with dignity (while, ironically, not wanting to pay for their life support).

It's not even solitary confinement.

I guess we need to hear from him what he thinks about the experience. Would it have been better to be dead? For myself I'm not sure I can answer that question, I can't even begin to answer it for someone else.

aybe we'll be able to intervene earlier if this neurologist has figured out how to see if self-awareness is there and communicate with folks like this sooner. Then we can get some idea of what their wishes are.

Tud's point is that most likely the "person in there" isn't the same person. He probally created multiple personalities or has other sever disorders from being "disconnected" from communicating.

Again, this is just "most likely", he could be completely sain but I guarentee they will/are doing tons of testing to make sure what damage(if any) was caused to him. If he did make it though 20+ years of a vegetative state w/out communicating and any long term mental problems...This guy will truly need to be studied.

Would you want to lie in bed 23 years paralyzed, unable to do anything but think, and powerless to end your own suffering?
Fvck no! That's an absolutely horrific prospect. I can't even imagine the boredom, depression, frustration, and despair one would endure in that state.

It would be nice if you could add something to your living will that spells out the circumstances under which you'd prefer to be euthanized in order to cover situations like this. Perhaps insurance companies could even give people a small break on their insurance premiums if they can show that they've opted for the, uh, "less expensive" option.

quote"which you'd prefer to be euthanized"

This is one of those things I had been considerating lately. With the many terminal illnesses and things like that, in a few states this is possible for those ailments. In the old days, particularly the medieval period, they often had such practices. I am wondering, if, upon a conviction of a crime, particularly the serious ones, it would be possible to extend a benefit of that nature as an option. I am also wondering, if those benefits could be extended to just the average person on the street as well.

One day we'll realize that the right to die, whenever and however you wish, is a fundamental corollary to the right to live. That is, when the Christians are removed from power and rational people take over.

Not necessarily Tuda. Western Philosophy, which is heavily influenced by Christianity yes, often suggests by nature you owe for being born into society, many of the eastern cultures do not necessarily share those viewpoints. In effect you owe somebody something, for educating and training, and feeding with your upbringing and general care in life. Many eastern cultures consider it a sign of respect for your upbringing instead of you owe something.

In effect by suicide you are in fact denying what you owe. Where as in old Japan when you failed your Emperor, you took your life to both preserve your honor by taking your own life as responsibility, respect for the emp, and keeping the emp. taking the time to do what he was going to do to you anyways for failing.

Fairly large contrast there. While euthanasia is practiced by both parties, but, discouraged in western society.

That's not exactly my point.

Our Constitution guarantees us the right to life. A necessary corollary is the right to death.

Just as, a necessary corollary of the right to speak is the right NOT to speak.

The Supreme Court had no difficulty reaching that conclusion in the area of free speech, but on account of religious zealots on the court and in power, it still refuses to acknowledge the constitutional right to die.

And the enforcement branch of the government is still trying to enforce their view of Christianity on sick people, by repeatedly challenging assisted suicide laws such as Oregon's.

If it weren't for religion, we would have had the constitutional right to die decades ago. I mean, what other rational justification could you possibly have for forcing random people to be tortured at our expense?

quote"which you'd prefer to be euthanized"

This is one of those things I had been considerating lately.
No, Palamin, don't give up! You still seem to have your wits about you. It's not time to throw in the towel yet.

I think our society also has a deep fear, thanks to stories like Logan's Run, that euthanasia could be perverted to eliminate people who are somehow deemed undesirable, like the elderly, mentally retarded or anyone with any genetic defect, like eugenics.

Just look at what the Righties tried to stir up with the "death panels" earlier this year.

quote"No, Palamin, don't give up! You still seem to have your wits about you. It's not time to throw in the towel yet."

I did not mean it quite like that, but, thanks for caring.

quote"I think our society also has a deep fear, thanks to stories like Logan's Run, that euthanasia could be perverted to eliminate people who are somehow deemed undesirable, "

Like many things can be corrupted, twisted, and perverted. Nobel, didn't quite like what dynamite got used for.

Quote"If it weren't for religion, we would have had the constitutional right to die decades ago."

It used to be a right to duel someone. In earlier western cultures euthansia was a right. The religeous argument is based largely upon the biblical faux pas that to kill oneself would be to deny god, therefore condemning oneself to hell. Makes kinda an interesting argument considering the biblical texts depending on which version of that manuscript, concerning the fate of Judas Iscariot.

Western Philosophy often preaches upon individual responsibility concerning social justice and many other common institutions. Which would frown upon suicide, euthanasia. The old adage the Captain goes down with the ship, is essentially no more with those principals. When a ship was sinking into the seas and oceans, the captain would commonly be associated in making sure everyone got off the ship into safety and would be the last one off the ship. Consider the Titanic captain, he is brought up frequently, many say he was a coward for not facing up to the charges of violations to safety protocals that contributed to the deaths of all those people. Also, considering he had wrecked the front end of a ship a couple weeks before.

As with the western philosophy, law, stuff, and psychology tend to cause sociological problems that they try to fix, just like in every other culture. Dead, after going on a 30 person killing spree for no apparent reason, they don't learn much, nor do the victims get social justice as well. Alive they don't learn much as well, as there is a certain amount of the newish philosophical principles of Chaos Theory, synonomous with business people quote often as Murphy's Law, but, rarely practice the understanding of the principals.


Also, consider the hypocratical oath physicians take. If a cancer patient is dying of cancer they can in fact study that cancer as they look for the cure. The process has gone on and on, so they try to fix it with some degree of success, but, ultimately people will die.

Also, consider the hypocratical oath physicians take. If a cancer patient is dying of cancer they can in fact study that cancer as they look for the cure. The process has gone on and on, so they try to fix it with some degree of success, but, ultimately people will die.
It probably depends on your definition of harm. I think harm could include the pain and suffering of prolonging life where it should end.

quote"I will neither prescribe nor administer a lethal dose of medicine to any patient even if asked nor counsel any such thing nor perform the utmost respect for every human life"- from the hippocratic oath

While the physicians oath of the Declaration of Geneva 1948 varies from the hippocratic,

quote"I will not permit considerations of religion, nationality, race, party politics or social standing to intervene between my duty and my patient;
I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception, even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity"

It does depend on the defination of harm, the shift in philosophy such as Dr. Kevorkian, it is very subjective. Dr. K's actions had been well documented. Many felt different than Dr. K, he was not just offering that sort of service just to anybody, just the critically ill who asked for it.

So what's in there that says you must prolong life against the wishes of your patient? Or that giving large doses of morphine, as they often do, to relieve pain, even if it hastens death, is not ok if that's what the patient wishes?

I'd like to see the oath modified so that the wishes of the patient are given more importance.

There's also no reason the oath can't be changed. Sounds like it varies from school to school. And how closely do doctors even follow it? Plenty practice abortion, or did at one time, many *will* give large doses of morphine at the end of life.

I wouldn't have any hesitation in breaking an oath if I thought the situation warranted it. I don't think there's any oath that can cover all the ethical situations that come up in life. Heh! Well, now I've gone and destroyed all my chances of holding public office.

I liked the philosophy of homicide investigator, Harry Bosch from John Connolly's detective novels: "Either everyone counts or no one counts". Which was his philosophy when investigating murders. Either the lowliest person who gets murdered counts or no one does. I think the medical profession could use some of that ethic.

I'd like to see the oath modified so that the wishes of the patient are given more importance.
Better yet, create a separate position at hospitals for people who aren't doctors but have studied how to help people die painlessly. If a nurse at the vets office can euthanize a sick animal humanely I don't see why someone with similar training at a hospital can't do it to a human.

I'd like to see the oath modified so that the wishes of the patient are given more importance.A better question is why doctors are still swearing to ancient gods under some 2,500 year old oath.

Better yet, create a separate position at hospitals for people who aren't doctors but have studied how to help people die painlessly.Then you'd have to give them the legal right to prescribe/administer controlled substances too. So you might as well just wrap it all up into the doctor category again.

aybe make it a new specialty, euthanasiology.

Well, following the actions of the Germans in the 1935ish- 1945 time period they came up with the new oath, which is part of what I quoted earlier that directly pertains to this subject as well as the variation from the Hippocratic oath. The rest of the physicians oath is basically fellatio of being a physician and their instructors. The physicians oath is fine. The laws would have to be changed is the difference. Similar to how business administration often gets in the way of doctor to patient care.