In September 2017, French scientists reported that they had partially restored the consciousness of a patient who had spent 15 years in a vegetative state. Now they were sharply criticized by colleagues, because they did not indicate in the publication that their ward died a few months later for reasons not related to experimental treatment, writes The Guardian.
A vegetative state is called a persistent lack of consciousness while maintaining the functions of internal organs and cycles of sleep and wakefulness. It occurs when the brain is severely damaged by injury or disease. Partial or complete withdrawal from it is extremely rare, its probability decreases in proportion to the time spent in the vegetative state. There are currently no effective ways to help such patients.
A research team led by the Institute of Cognitive Sciences from January to September 2016 performed electrical stimulation of the vagus nerve (the main nerve of the parasympathetic nervous system that transmits signals between the brain and internal organs) a 35-year-old man who had spent 15 years in a vegetative state after a head injury. Some of the fibers of this nerve are directly or indirectly connected to the parietal lobes, thalamus, amygdala, hippocampus and blue spot, which play a key role in maintaining consciousness, memory, attention, emotions and wakefulness.
According to the publication with the report on the experiment, the scientists managed to achieve an increase in the electrical activity of the brain structures responsible for consciousness, the restoration of oculomotor functions and even emotional reactions. In numerous interviews since the article was published, Operations Manager Angela Sirigu described the findings in a way that gave the impression of continuing to follow the patient. However, it turned out that a few months after the end of the experiment, the man died of pneumonia.
Sirigu explained the suppression of this fact by the desire of the patient's family to avoid public attention. According to her, since the death was not associated with the treatment carried out, in the context of the experiment, her mention is not of fundamental importance.
However, representatives of the scientific community did not agree with this opinion. For example, a cognitive scientist at the University of Birmingham, Damian Cruse, said that media coverage of the work could give excessive optimism to the families of other people in a vegetative state. “If you keep the patient's anonymity, there is no reason not to tell everything,” the expert said.
A professor at the University of Lyon, Jacques Luauté, who has been observing the patient for a long time, said that together with the family of the deceased, it was decided not to report the death, as this could lead people to a false idea of its connection with electrical stimulation. The scientist admitted that such a decision was a clear mistake.
Oleg Lishchuk
Promotional video: