A Scuffle In The Coma Ward

By Neuroskeptic | January 17, 2013 6:12 pm

A couple of months ago, the BBC TV show Panorama covered the work of a team of neurologists (led by Prof. Adrian Owen) who are pioneering the use of fMRI scanning to measure brain activity in coma patients.

The startling claim is that some people who have been considered entirely unconscious for years, are actually able to understand speech and respond to requests – not by body movements, but purely on the level of brain activation.

However, not everyone was impressed. A group of doctors swiftly wrote a critical response, published in the British Medical Journal as fMRI for vegetative and minimally conscious states: A more balanced perspective

The Panorama programme… failed to distinguish clearly between vegetative vs. minimally conscious states, and gave the impression that 20% of patients in a vegetative state show cognitive responses on fMRI.

There are important differences between the two states. Patients in a vegetative state have no discernible awareness of self and no cognitive interaction with their environment. Patients in a minimally conscious state show evidence of interaction through behaviours…

The programme presented two patients said to be in a “vegetative state” who showed evidence of cognitive interaction on assessment using fMRI but the clinical methods used for the original diagnosis were not stated. In both cases, family members clearly reported that the patient made positive but inconsistent behavioural responses to questions… one of these patients was filmed responding to a question from his mother by raising his thumb and the other seemed to turn his head purposefully.

So Panorama stands accused of passing off patients who were really minimally conscious, as being in a vegetative state. To see signs of understanding on brain scans from the latter would be truly amazing because it would be the first evidence that they weren’t, well, vegetative.

However if they were ‘merely’ minimally conscious patients, it’s not as interesting, because we already knew they were capable of making responses.

Now the Panorama team – and Professor Owen – have replied in a BMJ piece of their own. Given that they’re charged with  misleading journalism and sloppy medicine, they’re understandably a bit snarky:

Just by viewing this one hour documentary the authors felt able to discern that both the patients “said to be in a vegetative state” are “probably” minimally conscious… One of these patients, Scott, has had the same neurologist for more than a decade. Professor Young, who appeared in the film, made it clear that Scott had appeared vegetative in every assessment…

The fact that these authors took Scott’s fleeting movement, shown in the programme, to indicate a purposeful (“minimally conscious”) response shows why it is so important that the diagnosis is made in person, by an experienced neurologist, using internationally agreed criteria.

In other words, they were vegetative, and the critics who said otherwise, on the basis of some TV footage, were being silly.

In other words…it’s on.

ResearchBlogging.orgTurner-Stokes L, Kitzinger J, Gill-Thwaites H, Playford ED, Wade D, Allanson J, Pickard J, & Royal College of Physicians’ Prolonged Disorders of Consciousness Guidelines Development Group (2012). fMRI for vegetative and minimally conscious states. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 345 PMID: 23190911

Walsh F, Simmonds F, Young GB, & Owen AM (2013). Panorama responds to editorial on fMRI for vegetative and minimally conscious states. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 346 PMID: 23298817

CATEGORIZED UNDER: bad neuroscience, fMRI, media, papers
  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/12533263841520213358 William

    The boundaries between vegetative and partially conscious states are vague, especially given a sleep-wake cycle. This needs to be kept in mind, and not just by feuding journalists…

    Sparks can truly fly when an optimistic family sees evidence of a partially responsive loved one when the doctor has only seen the patient during their visits as vegetative. It can make for unneeded distrust and distress.

  • Anonymous


    Off-topic, and may also be too far out of your wheelhouse, but hope you choose to post about this petition:

  • DS

    Has all the markings of another “facilitated communication”.

  • http://petrossa.me/ petrossa.me

    wishful thinking and a faulty device makes for less then intelligent conclusions

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/06647064768789308157 Neuroskeptic

    DS: Mmm. That is a worry, I don't think it has to be like that but that's a good example of why rigorous, blinded control conditions are needed.

  • Adam S.

    Your last comment seems to be based on a misunderstanding. The Owen group isn't arguing that the patients “were vegetative” but still conscious and able to follow commands. That would be incoherent, given the definition of “vegetative”. They are arguing that patients who were previously diagnosed as being vegetative, using the best possible behavioral measures, were actually responsive in imaging tasks and hence should *not* be regarded as vegetative. In other words, they're arguing that the criteria for diagnosing whether patients are vegetative should be changed.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/06647064768789308157 Neuroskeptic

    Adam: That was a bit sloppy yes. What I meant was, the critics were saying, based on TV footage, that they were (behaviourally) MC and Owen et al maintained that they were in fact behaviourally vegetative – hence why the fMRI results are so important.



No brain. No gain.

About Neuroskeptic

Neuroskeptic is a British neuroscientist who takes a skeptical look at his own field, and beyond. His blog offers a look at the latest developments in neuroscience, psychiatry and psychology through a critical lens.


See More

@Neuro_Skeptic on Twitter


Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Collapse bottom bar