C
CremeSickle
We have not had (to any of the attendings knowledge) a pt who has had awareness. Has anyone else?
A patient during my anesthesiology rotation told me that she had an out of body experience during a thyroidectomy she had received several years ago. She described in detail the equipment (ie. retractors, cautery etc.), the positions of the people in the room, as well as specifics regarding the conversation of the room. Now, this was a woman who was completely ignorant with regards to things of a medical bent, leaving no doubt in my mind that what she spoke of was true.
In one sense it did surprise me to hear her story because I know that it's not an overly common experience. In another sense it didn't surprise me at all, coming from a personal belief that as human beings we are most fundamentally spiritual.
We have not had (to any of the attendings knowledge) a pt who has had awareness. Has anyone else?
*******************************************************In one sense it did surprise me to hear her story because I know that it's not an overly common experience. In another sense it didn't surprise me at all, coming from a personal belief that as human beings we are most fundamentally spiritual.
*******************************************************
I apologize for the brazen response--I imagine that your intentions are good, and this is alone is admirable, albeit off the mark. This type of thinking from an educated person is worrisome. I would argue that "God" is responsible for most of the misery that C.S Lewis seems to think is "all that we call human history." Though I am humble enough to vouch that great thinkers of yore may have had sharper minds than my own, this does not preclude me from using my 21st century vantage point to corrrect them on matters of neurobiology. The following are excerpts from letters I sent to the eternal souls of such intellectual giants, who, theoretically, can even today, frown at my sarcasm:
Dear C.S. Lewis, there is no biological substrate for the soul or spirit. Furthermore, it is firmly established that the universe was created by random events about 14.6 billion years ago, and that the human species is an animal evolved from monkeys. There is no God.
Dear DesCartes, the pineal gland is not, in fact, the reciever/antenna through which the soul communicates with the body (http://www.crystalinks.com/thirdeyepineal.html)--it seems to play a role in the regulation of circadian rhythms.
Sincerely,
Great Googly Moogly
********************************************************
Subsequently, I must take issue with the assertion that human beings are "fundamentally spiritual?" If nothing else, I would have hoped that medical school would have firmly cemented that human beings are anything but "spiritual." There are valid scientific claims to be made about the ability of humans to alter their "consciousness" (read: their EEGs patterns) which, to a subjective human observer may seem "spiritual," (please appreciate the pre-existing contextual framework necessary to describe this type of experience as such). Other than this confusion, this type of thinking from an educated scientist is, again, worrisome.
Which part of medical school reinforced this spiritual belief? To have completed a medical education without understanding that (1) a physician's personal belief without appropriate (read: not bogus metaphysical "proof") supporting evidence and (2) consciousness is a complex neurobiological representation of one's existence to the one's "self" as the observer is tantamount to at best, ignorance, and, at worst, malpractice. If we have a soul that directs our movements, thoughts and actions--consciousness-- then it either physically exists somewhere in the body or it doesn't--this is an empirical question to which there is a definite answer. Either it does or it doesn't. If it exists in the body, we should be able to find it. If it does not, then some explanations are in order: where does it exist? how does it direct our actions? why do physical events have such profound effects on a non-physical soul? For example, why do drugs (that physically affect ion potentials) and strokes (that physically kill neurons) produce such profound effects on (the allegedly non-physical) consciousness, for example, a right-sided lesion resulting in hemineglect? Like it or not, as physicians we are, or at least have a duty to ourselves and to our patients, to be SCIENTISTS! There is absolutely no evidence that there is anything even closely approximating a spirit that can exist separate from the ion potentials that we so mistakenly and egocentrically mistake for our "selves!"
I encourage rebuttal to this stance, but, for the sake of validity, I urge two things, that the substrate for the soul or spirit be suggested without resorting to magic (i.e. the nonsensical argument that the soul exists outside the realm of science and is, consequently/fortunately for religious people, undetectable) or archaic, mysogynistic, miraculous texts. Miracles have been on the retreat since the Age of Enlightenment.
*******************************************************
I apologize for the brazen response--I imagine that your intentions are good, and this is alone is admirable, albeit off the mark. This type of thinking from an educated person is worrisome. I would argue that "God" is responsible for most of the misery that C.S Lewis seems to think is "all that we call human history." Though I am humble enough to vouch that great thinkers of yore may have had sharper minds than my own, this does not preclude me from using my 21st century vantage point to corrrect them on matters of neurobiology. The following are excerpts from letters I sent to the eternal souls of such intellectual giants, who, theoretically, can even today, frown at my sarcasm:
Dear C.S. Lewis, there is no biological substrate for the soul or spirit. Furthermore, it is firmly established that the universe was created by random events about 14.6 billion years ago, and that the human species is an animal evolved from monkeys. There is no God.
Dear DesCartes, the pineal gland is not, in fact, the reciever/antenna through which the soul communicates with the body (http://www.crystalinks.com/thirdeyepineal.html)--it seems to play a role in the regulation of circadian rhythms.
Sincerely,
Great Googly Moogly
********************************************************
Subsequently, I must take issue with the assertion that human beings are "fundamentally spiritual?" If nothing else, I would have hoped that medical school would have firmly cemented that human beings are anything but "spiritual." There are valid scientific claims to be made about the ability of humans to alter their "consciousness" (read: their EEGs patterns) which, to a subjective human observer may seem "spiritual," (please appreciate the pre-existing contextual framework necessary to describe this type of experience as such). Other than this confusion, this type of thinking from an educated scientist is, again, worrisome.
Which part of medical school reinforced this spiritual belief? To have completed a medical education without understanding that (1) a physician's personal belief without appropriate (read: not bogus metaphysical "proof") supporting evidence and (2) consciousness is a complex neurobiological representation of one's existence to the one's "self" as the observer is tantamount to at best, ignorance, and, at worst, malpractice. If we have a soul that directs our movements, thoughts and actions--consciousness-- then it either physically exists somewhere in the body or it doesn't--this is an empirical question to which there is a definite answer. Either it does or it doesn't. If it exists in the body, we should be able to find it. If it does not, then some explanations are in order: where does it exist? how does it direct our actions? why do physical events have such profound effects on a non-physical soul? For example, why do drugs (that physically affect ion potentials) and strokes (that physically kill neurons) produce such profound effects on (the allegedly non-physical) consciousness, for example, a right-sided lesion resulting in hemineglect? Like it or not, as physicians we are, or at least have a duty to ourselves and to our patients, to be SCIENTISTS! There is absolutely no evidence that there is anything even closely approximating a spirit that can exist separate from the ion potentials that we so mistakenly and egocentrically mistake for our "selves!"
I encourage rebuttal to this stance, but, for the sake of validity, I urge two things, that the substrate for the soul or spirit be suggested without resorting to magic (i.e. the nonsensical argument that the soul exists outside the realm of science and is, consequently/fortunately for religious people, undetectable) or archaic, mysogynistic, miraculous texts. Miracles have been on the retreat since the Age of Enlightenment.
*******************************************************
I apologize for the brazen response--I imagine that your intentions are good, and this is alone is admirable, albeit off the mark. This type of thinking from an educated person is worrisome. I would argue that "God" is responsible for most of the misery that C.S Lewis seems to think is "all that we call human history." Though I am humble enough to vouch that great thinkers of yore may have had sharper minds than my own, this does not preclude me from using my 21st century vantage point to corrrect them on matters of neurobiology. The following are excerpts from letters I sent to the eternal souls of such intellectual giants, who, theoretically, can even today, frown at my sarcasm:
Dear C.S. Lewis, there is no biological substrate for the soul or spirit. Furthermore, it is firmly established that the universe was created by random events about 14.6 billion years ago, and that the human species is an animal evolved from monkeys. There is no God.
Dear DesCartes, the pineal gland is not, in fact, the reciever/antenna through which the soul communicates with the body (http://www.crystalinks.com/thirdeyepineal.html)--it seems to play a role in the regulation of circadian rhythms.
Sincerely,
Great Googly Moogly
********************************************************
Subsequently, I must take issue with the assertion that human beings are "fundamentally spiritual?" If nothing else, I would have hoped that medical school would have firmly cemented that human beings are anything but "spiritual." There are valid scientific claims to be made about the ability of humans to alter their "consciousness" (read: their EEGs patterns) which, to a subjective human observer may seem "spiritual," (please appreciate the pre-existing contextual framework necessary to describe this type of experience as such). Other than this confusion, this type of thinking from an educated scientist is, again, worrisome.
Which part of medical school reinforced this spiritual belief? To have completed a medical education without understanding that (1) a physician's personal belief without appropriate (read: not bogus metaphysical "proof") supporting evidence and (2) consciousness is a complex neurobiological representation of one's existence to the one's "self" as the observer is tantamount to at best, ignorance, and, at worst, malpractice. If we have a soul that directs our movements, thoughts and actions--consciousness-- then it either physically exists somewhere in the body or it doesn't--this is an empirical question to which there is a definite answer. Either it does or it doesn't. If it exists in the body, we should be able to find it. If it does not, then some explanations are in order: where does it exist? how does it direct our actions? why do physical events have such profound effects on a non-physical soul? For example, why do drugs (that physically affect ion potentials) and strokes (that physically kill neurons) produce such profound effects on (the allegedly non-physical) consciousness, for example, a right-sided lesion resulting in hemineglect? Like it or not, as physicians we are, or at least have a duty to ourselves and to our patients, to be SCIENTISTS! There is absolutely no evidence that there is anything even closely approximating a spirit that can exist separate from the ion potentials that we so mistakenly and egocentrically mistake for our "selves!"
I encourage rebuttal to this stance, but, for the sake of validity, I urge two things, that the substrate for the soul or spirit be suggested without resorting to magic (i.e. the nonsensical argument that the soul exists outside the realm of science and is, consequently/fortunately for religious people, undetectable) or archaic, mysogynistic, miraculous texts. Miracles have been on the retreat since the Age of Enlightenment.
*******************************************************
I apologize for the brazen response--I imagine that your intentions are good, and this is alone is admirable, albeit off the mark. This type of thinking from an educated person is worrisome. I would argue that "God" is responsible for most of the misery that C.S Lewis seems to think is "all that we call human history." Though I am humble enough to vouch that great thinkers of yore may have had sharper minds than my own, this does not preclude me from using my 21st century vantage point to corrrect them on matters of neurobiology. The following are excerpts from letters I sent to the eternal souls of such intellectual giants, who, theoretically, can even today, frown at my sarcasm:
Dear C.S. Lewis, there is no biological substrate for the soul or spirit. Furthermore, it is firmly established that the universe was created by random events about 14.6 billion years ago, and that the human species is an animal evolved from monkeys. There is no God.
Dear DesCartes, the pineal gland is not, in fact, the reciever/antenna through which the soul communicates with the body (http://www.crystalinks.com/thirdeyepineal.html)--it seems to play a role in the regulation of circadian rhythms.
Sincerely,
Great Googly Moogly
********************************************************
Subsequently, I must take issue with the assertion that human beings are "fundamentally spiritual?" If nothing else, I would have hoped that medical school would have firmly cemented that human beings are anything but "spiritual." There are valid scientific claims to be made about the ability of humans to alter their "consciousness" (read: their EEGs patterns) which, to a subjective human observer may seem "spiritual," (please appreciate the pre-existing contextual framework necessary to describe this type of experience as such). Other than this confusion, this type of thinking from an educated scientist is, again, worrisome.
Which part of medical school reinforced this spiritual belief? To have completed a medical education without understanding that (1) a physician's personal belief without appropriate (read: not bogus metaphysical "proof") supporting evidence and (2) consciousness is a complex neurobiological representation of one's existence to the one's "self" as the observer is tantamount to at best, ignorance, and, at worst, malpractice. If we have a soul that directs our movements, thoughts and actions--consciousness-- then it either physically exists somewhere in the body or it doesn't--this is an empirical question to which there is a definite answer. Either it does or it doesn't. If it exists in the body, we should be able to find it. If it does not, then some explanations are in order: where does it exist? how does it direct our actions? why do physical events have such profound effects on a non-physical soul? For example, why do drugs (that physically affect ion potentials) and strokes (that physically kill neurons) produce such profound effects on (the allegedly non-physical) consciousness, for example, a right-sided lesion resulting in hemineglect? Like it or not, as physicians we are, or at least have a duty to ourselves and to our patients, to be SCIENTISTS! There is absolutely no evidence that there is anything even closely approximating a spirit that can exist separate from the ion potentials that we so mistakenly and egocentrically mistake for our "selves!"
I encourage rebuttal to this stance, but, for the sake of validity, I urge two things, that the substrate for the soul or spirit be suggested without resorting to magic (i.e. the nonsensical argument that the soul exists outside the realm of science and is, consequently/fortunately for religious people, undetectable) or archaic, mysogynistic, miraculous texts. Miracles have been on the retreat since the Age of Enlightenment.
Do any of you use those EEG monitor things to see if the patient might be aware?
I agree that the data isn't great, and certainly not foolproof when agents like Ketamine are used (BIS will be higher but pt will be unaware, or maybe they're aware but they just don't care and won't remember it). In any case I really like the idea of the BIS in the sense that the BIS someday in a more refined form will be used to titrate anesthetic depth to. MAC seems so rudimentary, end tidal only really works well for the inhaled agents. And less anesthesia in a global sense is generally better.