<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: fMRI, Consciousness, and Vegetative States</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.law.stanford.edu/lawandbiosciences/2010/02/06/fmri-consciousness-and-vegetative-states/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.law.stanford.edu/lawandbiosciences/2010/02/06/fmri-consciousness-and-vegetative-states/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 May 2013 20:20:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Chris Borthwick</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.stanford.edu/lawandbiosciences/2010/02/06/fmri-consciousness-and-vegetative-states/comment-page-1/#comment-338</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Borthwick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Feb 2010 03:28:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.stanford.edu/lawandbiosciences/2010/02/06/fmri-consciousness-and-vegetative-states/#comment-338</guid>
		<description>So why are people surprised? PVS was always a dodgy business, and since Andrews et al 1996 (K. Andrews, L. Murphy, R. Munday, C. Littlewood, C. Misdiagnosis of the vegetative state: retrospective study in a rehabilitation unit. BMJ 313 (1996) 13-16; found that 75% of the patients in that study who had been diagnosed as being in PVS were eventually able to communicate) should from a scientific standpoint have been discarded altogether. In practice, of course, it makes us uncomfortable to believe people are suffering and we adopt schemas and diagnoses that obscure this.
For a fuller account, see my article (Borthwick CJ, Crossley R., Permanent vegetative state: usefulness and limits of a prognostic definition. NeuroRehabilitation. 2004;19(4):381-9), online at http://home.vicnet.net.au/~borth/Neurorehabpvs.html.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So why are people surprised? PVS was always a dodgy business, and since Andrews et al 1996 (K. Andrews, L. Murphy, R. Munday, C. Littlewood, C. Misdiagnosis of the vegetative state: retrospective study in a rehabilitation unit. BMJ 313 (1996) 13-16; found that 75% of the patients in that study who had been diagnosed as being in PVS were eventually able to communicate) should from a scientific standpoint have been discarded altogether. In practice, of course, it makes us uncomfortable to believe people are suffering and we adopt schemas and diagnoses that obscure this.<br />
For a fuller account, see my article (Borthwick CJ, Crossley R., Permanent vegetative state: usefulness and limits of a prognostic definition. NeuroRehabilitation. 2004;19(4):381-9), online at <a href="http://home.vicnet.net.au/~borth/Neurorehabpvs.html" rel="nofollow">http://home.vicnet.net.au/~borth/Neurorehabpvs.html</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
