Message Board

No, not in the metaphysical sense. Let's discuss consciousness and awareness in the context of brain damage or coma. In this sense, one might think of consciousness as a person's ability to be aware of and responsive to their surroundings. However, as we've seen in the news, things are rarely that simple.

Consider the two medical terms "persistent vegetative state" (like Terry Schiavo) and "minimally conscious state" (look them up on wikipedia). In PVS, the sufferer may respond to stimuli but is not really conscious. In MCS, sufferers do have consciousness, although it is limited.

So how do we determine consciousness? Blinking? Saying a word? Brain imaging? Here is a paper ( http://www.neurology.org/cgi/content/full/68/12/895 ) that describes using fMRI to view brain activity in vegetative and MCS patients while hearing their own name. Where then do we draw the line for consciousness? Activity in the auditory cortex? Frontal lobes?

So I think that we need to consider for what reason we want to determine consciousness. If we are deciding whether or not we are going to pull the plug on a person, I think that all of the different ways, including fMRI, should be explained to the family, the ones that they are interested in carried out, and their decision based entirely upon that.
however, if we are looking to determine when a family would be legally allowed to pull the plug, we would then need to determine a definite point. For me, I think that fMRI might be a good system, and that the ability to recognize one's own name might be an adequate cutoff point (so the primary auditory cortex). However, I don't think it would be a bad idea to keep the decision up to the family, as they could then decide to what degree they want the person's consciousness to continue at. For example, perhaps any degree of unconsciousness might be undesirable to that person, as known by their family, so perhaps they should be allowed to die (although that does seem to be a rather extreme case). Additionally, some families might want to keep someone alive who has no activity at all.
-Karl

I couldn?t agree more with Karl. He is absolutely correct. It depends on the application if we are going to decide whether someone is conscious or not. There are times when patients are actually in a minimally conscious state but the physicians responsible for care have determined the patient to be in a vegetative state. This mistake could prevent someone of potential recovery or comfort and relief from pain. Since consciousness seems almost fleeting in MCS victims it can be difficult to determine the level of awareness they have. For this reason I think if a line were to be drawn on whether someone is conscious or not we would have to make the line inclusive of all MCS patients. This way we are cognizant to the individual?s problems which vary greatly. Defining more people as aware allows for proper handling by caregivers and family members. If someone can hear but otherwise unconscious then offensive speech or speech that could affect the patient emotionally should be avoided. If someone is potentially experiencing pain, then it is our responsibility to relieve it. However if these people were considered to be in a vegetative state then it is possible that these measures are not taken and that possibility should be reason enough to consider someone conscious if in doubt about there state.

The issue with this discussion is with the definition of consciousness itself. I personally define consciousness as any higher order function that does not preside over base functions. In PVS, it seems that there is a lack of this presence wither by damage or scarring. Without this I do not believe that the person truly exists anymore, or is buried or lost within the damage. I agree with the statement of the man who coined the term "PVS" when he said that it is a unique creation of man by way of progressing medicine. In MCS, it seems that there is a certain number of these higher functions are still active, while others have died. The interesting thing about the article is that it does nothing to touch on it ethically but reveals a way to determine which side of the line a patient is on in terms of being PVS or MCS. I agree with Matt and Karl that these procedures are useful to determine the right course of action for the care of that individual, but I think that we must look at how this research is distinguished. I think that having the auditory cortex flare means that the body is functioning as a normal date receiver but there is no processing of that data. I think that result is PVS and having any other neurological activity need to be understood at that region. If their name is spoken and their auditory cortex flares along with ocular motor nerves as a reflex and the eyes twitch, that is not consciousness. Much needs to be learned about the brain and its areas as the work in conjunction to determine whether or not a person is there. Also, the damage done means that the person may return as a different person. However, the final analysis is that the fMRI can be used to draw the line and allow patients families to understand what their loved one is going through. However, it is up to the family to understand what their loved one would want and it is ultimately their decision. I cannot speak either way on the subject as I have never been posed with that decision, but I would adhere to the subjects wishes to the letter as it is their life to do with as they please, even after they cannot make the decision.