Is This Man Fully Alert and Communicating - or Not?
The story of Rom Houben was posted earlier today on Neatorama, and is being carried on every major online news site - a Belgian man paralyzed for 23 years and diagnosed as being in a vegetative state has been found through new technology to be alert but "locked in." With an assistant helping him communicate by means of a keyboard, he is now reportedly describing what this experience has been like. The case adds fuel to the fiery controversy regarding end-of-life planning and the right to die.
Every site that I have encountered has taken the story at face value. The one exception has come from the James Randi, who has written an essay entitled "This Cruel Farce Has to Stop!" He notes that the communications from the subject all occur via a "facilitator" who "supports" the patient's hand as it traverses the keyboard...
At the essay, Randi states that he has previously investigated "facilitated communication" when it was used to communicate with severely autistic children; he found the technique to be faulty and subject to observer bias in the manner of the "clever Hans" effect.
This patient is clearly severely impaired but is clearly not brain dead. Brain imaging studies have shown evidence of consciousness and awareness, which is fully compatible with his impairment. The controversy is whether the communications are valid representations of his thoughts, or whether they are (consciously or subconsciously) creations of the facilitator.
The video embedded above is a brief excerpt from the MSNBC video. Several other videos are available at the BBC, Telegraph, and other news sites.
Link, via Reddit.
Addendum: Subsequent controlled trials failed to show any validity for "facilitated communication."
Every site that I have encountered has taken the story at face value. The one exception has come from the James Randi, who has written an essay entitled "This Cruel Farce Has to Stop!" He notes that the communications from the subject all occur via a "facilitator" who "supports" the patient's hand as it traverses the keyboard...
The "facilitated communication" process consists of the "facilitator" actually holding the hand of the subject over the keyboard, moving the hand to the key, then drawing the hand back from the keyboard! This very intimate participatory action lends itself very easily to transferring the intended information to the computer screen. In the video you have just viewed, it is very evident that (a) the "facilitator" is looking directly at the keyboard and the screen, and (b) is moving the subject's hand. The video editing is also biased, giving angles that line up the head of the subject with the screen, as if the subject were watching the screen.
At the essay, Randi states that he has previously investigated "facilitated communication" when it was used to communicate with severely autistic children; he found the technique to be faulty and subject to observer bias in the manner of the "clever Hans" effect.
This patient is clearly severely impaired but is clearly not brain dead. Brain imaging studies have shown evidence of consciousness and awareness, which is fully compatible with his impairment. The controversy is whether the communications are valid representations of his thoughts, or whether they are (consciously or subconsciously) creations of the facilitator.
The video embedded above is a brief excerpt from the MSNBC video. Several other videos are available at the BBC, Telegraph, and other news sites.
Link, via Reddit.
Addendum: Subsequent controlled trials failed to show any validity for "facilitated communication."
