Posted on 07/04/2006 11:07:52 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
A study of the "miraculous" recovery of a man who spent 19 years in a minimally conscious state has revealed the likely cause of his regained consciousness.
The findings suggest the human brain shows far greater potential for recovery and regeneration then ever suspected. It may also help doctors predict their patients’ chances of improvement. But the studies also highlight gross inadequacies in the system for diagnosing and caring for patients in vegetative or minimally conscious states.
(Excerpt) Read more at newscientist.com ...
Gee, I thought today's doctors knew everything. If they say someone like Terri Shiavo is brain dead and has no chance for improvement, that's the word of God is it not? Now they tell us they really don't know? What a shocker. NOT.
this has been posted so many times that I'm starting to get supicious....
A search on "brain" brings up at least 5 FR threads on this particular man. 4 of them are the AP item. This is the first time for this one from New Scientist.
Ping!
Relevant for euthanasia debate; there is hope.
It's always fascinated me how those who won't allow a convicted killer to be executed on the off chance he might be innocent will rally to have someone who is diagnosed as in a persistent vegetative state put to death, because the odds are slim they'll ever recover.
Ping for Terri thread.
DISCUSSION ABOUT:
'Rewired brain' revives patient after 19 years
A miraculous story of a man who the eugenicists would have undoubtedly killed!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be included in or removed from the MORAL ABSOLUTES PINGLIST, please FReepMail wagglebee.
Tell me about it.
There's some neat stuff coming out of Israel now that gives great hope for undoing, or retroactively minimizing, neural damage. They've managed to restore some (though FAR from full) feeling and movement to quadraplegics, and boost some comatose individuals back into consciousnes. Fascinating stuff. Cutting-edge, which probably won't be viable as a medical practice for years, likely decades. But it's good to know that it's being worked on.
I think we are on the brink of a huge revolution in medicine. One that won't affect me much, but my children will benefit.
I hope it will be sooner than decades.
Is Massachusetts a good place for him to live?
We all do. But responsible researchers won't allow the tech out for public consumption until they know its properties, full effects (including at least meidum-term) and possible side-effects, and what it interacts with. To do otherwise would be dangerous.
Testing takes years at each stage, and the stages add up. But its interesting stuff nonetheless. I tell you, some of the tech coming out of M.I.T., Caltech, the big Israeli institutes, Sick Kid's Hospital in Toronto, Canada and a few other places (one or two in Germany, and Japan spring to mind) is incredible. It would have been science fiction fifteen years ago.
We are. And exactly what you said. I fervent believe that a large minority of those born after 1975, if not a majority, will live well into triple digits.
It also brings fantastic new possibilities for acting ethically. Think of all the lives that could be saved.
More ammunition for the overpopulation\abortion crowd, I would think.
Sadly, you're probably right.
Life is a gift from G-d. But, it's true that until interplanetary colonization becomes a valid possibility (which it will...eventually), we do have to watch our population. Population growth works increases along an exponential. However, that does not mean we need population reduction/abortion, or central family planning. G-d forbid that. It just means that if you don't have the means to support them, you shouldn't have too many kids.
Asia and Africa, I'm looking your way...
North Americans and Europeans need more kids. Russia definitely does. Japan could use a few more, though they are overpopulated; they need enough to reverse the rapidly shrinking population, but they certainly don't need to increase their population. We could go through this country by country, but I think we can all guess what each country needs to do.
I once did the math and if my numbers are correct, you could put everyone on the planet in Texas. You'd wind up with roughly 5 people for every quarter acre, according to my numbers.
Although, if you saw my check register, you might doubt my math skills.
(I'm going from memory, I'm too lazy to do the numbers again)
*chuckles*
Several problems with that. Quickly, here are a few. One, each person needs a certain amount of land to support them, depending on lifestyle and consumption, especially when you take into account the chain of production. It's considerably more than a quarter acre. Secondly, you are not taking into account long-term consequences of such heavy population concentration. It isn't pretty. Next, there are sociological consequence. I personally believe that urban sprawl is psychologically unhealthy. I'm sure I could dig up statistics to support that, at least circumstantially. Next, not all land is arable, or suited for human habitation. On an individual or small group level, properly equipped, a person could survive pretty much anywhere. But large-scale societies need either massive support infrastructure (i.e. Las Vegas), or a certain kind of environs.
I could go on, but I won't.
Also, now that I think about it, there was a case study that stated if everyone on the planet died today, you could bury them in Texas,
Well, one thing about having all of humanity is Texas is that leaves the rest of the world a pristine paradise..haha
Seriously, all people in Texas is ridiculous, however, pointing out such a thing usually shuts up the "Earth is overpopulated" crowd.
This gives liberals some hope that someday their brains will somewhat work.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.