On February 4, 2010, an article entitled “Brainwaves” appeared online through the Star Tribune. The article explored the recent development of scientific evidence that some patients that have suffered traumatic brain injury can actually respond mentally to questions asked to them by their doctors. Some patients studied that were absolutely unable to communicate or exhibit any sort of physical movement showed signs that they were mentally responding to questions about their lives prior to their accident.
The article described, at great length for a relatively short article, how patients in a vegetative state due to massive trauma (but not oxygen depletion) can respond, but it is extremely rare. Ethics are only mentioned at the very end.
Draft:
This article is all about the glorification of science. This article simply describes that science has, yet again, done something really cool, tells readers all about it, and then right at the last second mentions ethics. What gets me most is that the article starts with a disclaimer saying that this new technique has so many restrictions that is can only be used on very rare occasions.
The author of the article spent a great deal of time conveying how excited all of the scientists were about this development. At the very end of the article, the question of the ramifications of this new technique was quickly tossed into the mix. This new technique could possibly aid doctors in determining if patients in a vegetative state are in pain or whether or not patients wish to remain living. The author of the article voiced come concern that this could be a problem in terms of whether or not the results are reliable enough to be considered accurate. In my personal opinion, I think that if scientists wish to inform the public about developments such as this, they should also be asking these ethical questions instead of leaving it up to the general public.
You bring up a good point that brain activity is hard to interpret when the person isn't there to tell you how they are feeling. It appears that your main concern is that the author is the main interpretor of the ethics and applications, and not the scientists studying these brains. I would focus on this point, and perhaps quote a passage from the article.
ReplyDelete