This analysis is by Steven Novella of the Yale University School of Medicine. He says he doesn't have enough information to diagnose Houben's condition, but he is much more certain that Houben is not likely the author of the statements attributed to him in the media. If you don't know about the case, you should definitely read all of Novella's post--and if you do know the case, it's worth reading the whole post as well, of course.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2838...I do not know if this is the only clinical evidence of consciousness in Houben. Perhaps he can do what other locked in patients can do – tap once for “yes” and twice for” no,” for example. Maybe the FC <facilitated communication> is a later addition – a misguided attempt to communicate with Houben, who really is locked in. (In which case I wonder what he thinks about his facilitator – perhaps he is still screaming in his head, “get rid of this nut and let’s go back to the finger tapping.”)
The only thing I am certain about in this case is that the typing out of messages through FC is bogus. Otherwise, I do not have access to sufficiently detailed information to make any specific conclusions.
Hopefully, more information will come to light as further journalists are attracted to this case. Also, I have e-mailed Dr. Laureys hoping to get some more information directly from him. He responded with a link to his paper on this topic, but there is no identifiable information in the paper about Houben. He simply says that Houben illustrates the problem discussed in his paper – the misdiagnosis of MCS as PVS. He did not comment on the FC used in this case. If I get any further information I will write a follow up.
Meanwhile, this case stands as a cautionary tale – mostly about the dangers of the media discussing the implications of a story before the facts have been verified. It may also be a rare case of misdiagnosed locked in syndrome. My best guess is that Dr. Laureys is correct about the preserved cortical activity, but he is simply not familiar with the phenomenon of FC (he did not sound familiar on the interview) and has been deceived by it. If this is so, then the FC is an unfortunate distraction from this case (and getting disproportionate attention from the media). I am already reading science bloggers comment on the fact that the video of Houben typing calls the whole case into question.
It is also, in my opinion, a further abuse of this patient. Mr. Houben, if he is truly conscious, has now been deprived once again of his ability to communicate – usurped by a facilitator, who will be communicating in his name (and even writing a book, we are told). Never underestimate the ability for pseudoscience to make a bad situation worse.
...
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
