Is it difficult for most modern hospitals to use modern scanning techniques these days? Twenty-three years ago, maybe it was different, but I've never understood - especially if you have a machine onsite just a floor down - why so many doctors are like, "Meh, I shined a light right in his eye. That's pretty much science right there," and decline to cart him 100 feet over.
If doctors had a procedure available that could treat an extra 40% of cancer patients a year and save 3,000-5,000 lives at a time, but declined to do so because "we've always done it this way," I'm pretty certain we'd be racing for pitchforks and torches.
We all flame-on over AT&T's 3G coverage, or whether Windows 7 will outperform Vista, but if there's ever been something we should be passionate about when it comes to technology, getting doctors to use it should be it.
@Poop Cooper: Or making it more efficient. Everything these days revolves around money, even if they wanted to greed gets in the way of many medical decisions. Very inept decision based on the short term rather than the long term.
The United States more than any other rich nation can serve as testimony to this. We spend more on health care a year that would be saved if we spent more on preventative measures.
In Puerto Rico which is a common wealth of the US if your in a serious car accident they usually just leave you on the side of the road to die. ICU is expensive for them, where many could be saved they choose to save money.(My brother lived there for a while, just one of the stories he told me)
@Poop Cooper: A lot of hospitals aren't equipped to perform expensive tests. The hospitals themselves don't make enough money to buy things like that. Most people's insurance (in the U.S.) precludes elaborate testing procedures, without the funds to undertake an expensive procedure, people are often S.O.L. Even when they have an assailable condition.
Well, it's starting to look like my populist rage might have been unheeded. Luckily (maybe?) it's looking like these statistics and this story could all be a farce of some kind, and to be honest, I hope so. I'd take much greater comfort knowing I got duped, this guy didn't have suffer for 23 years, and that doctors aren't nearly as incompetent as I have them pegged, than to think the pessimism of @theubersmurf is reality.
Unfortunately, I don't think that the credibility of this article and such a harsh reality are mutually exclusive.
@ninjikiran: I'm confused. You're saying that the US inefficiently spends too much money that would be better spent on preventative services, but then give an example of how not enough money is spent on ICUs. If possible, can you clarify your point a little more?
@Poop Cooper: So, like you said below, it looks like this is all a fake. But as in the case of so much bad science reporting, we will be left with the repercussions--in this case, diminished trust in the science behind gross examinations.
The light in the eye isn't "pretty much science." It's just science.
Just like the Glasgow Coma Scale is just science. Even the Coma Science Group, of which Dr. Laureys is the head, does not dispute its use--which is certainly not the impression one gets from this bad story.
This is a terribly reported story. It is unprofessional.
@Frisky Unicorns: Yeah, I certainly made an ass out of myself with that crack about using the Glasgow Coma Scale. I can see how the author fell for this though - it definitely re-affirms our fears when it comes to our doctors' competence and preys on the fear that comes with how little control we actually have when any malady comes along.
Hopefully the article will be amended with an update if this is indeed proven wrong.
I read this earlier, how terrifying. I'm glad somebody was able to get through to him, I only wonder if he sometimes misses some of the nurse's stories.
How has he not gone insane after 23 years? It's better than no interaction at all (i.e. solitary confinement), but 23 years of quasi-solitary confinement I would've thought would lead to some kind of permanent psychological damage.
I wonder if this poor guy could benefit from any of the new neural interfaces they have out there? Even the ability to move a cursor with his thoughts would be a huge step for him.
@phunnyballs: Wow. Way to bring my heart wrenching sympathy for him and utter fear of this ever happening again to the next level. Ought to sleep great now.
I imagine a Gizmodian's first impulse upon reading a headline like this is to make some kind of cartoon coma comment for a joke....but after reading this it escapes me. How horrible this must be for anyone to experience.
@Segador: Yup. To be honest, the thing that really amazes me is the ineptness of the medical community at large to not jump on this RIGHT NOW and start treating people in comas appropriately.
BTW my favourite version of tetris is "The New Tetris" for N64 (not Tetris Sphere). It's the one where you have to form cubes that then congeal together and create multipliers for the lines. (Gold=x10, Silver=x5) Anyone else play this?
Well, this is good, because I play the HELL out of it. I think I have a copy of it on every electronic I own (PC, phone, iPod, TI-89, etc.)! LOVE IT. But then again, who doesn't?
11/24/09
11/23/09
If doctors had a procedure available that could treat an extra 40% of cancer patients a year and save 3,000-5,000 lives at a time, but declined to do so because "we've always done it this way," I'm pretty certain we'd be racing for pitchforks and torches.
We all flame-on over AT&T's 3G coverage, or whether Windows 7 will outperform Vista, but if there's ever been something we should be passionate about when it comes to technology, getting doctors to use it should be it.
11/23/09
11/23/09
The United States more than any other rich nation can serve as testimony to this. We spend more on health care a year that would be saved if we spent more on preventative measures.
In Puerto Rico which is a common wealth of the US if your in a serious car accident they usually just leave you on the side of the road to die. ICU is expensive for them, where many could be saved they choose to save money.(My brother lived there for a while, just one of the stories he told me)
11/23/09
11/24/09
Unfortunately, I don't think that the credibility of this article and such a harsh reality are mutually exclusive.
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
The light in the eye isn't "pretty much science." It's just science.
Just like the Glasgow Coma Scale is just science. Even the Coma Science Group, of which Dr. Laureys is the head, does not dispute its use--which is certainly not the impression one gets from this bad story.
This is a terribly reported story. It is unprofessional.
Arrgh.
11/24/09
Hopefully the article will be amended with an update if this is indeed proven wrong.
11/23/09
Wow.
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
I was more so making reference to Arrested Development when Buster was faking his coma.
11/23/09
#tips
11/24/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
I am that guy that left the first joke comment. And now shame is sinking in...
11/23/09
11/23/09
#tips
11/23/09
09/03/09
BTW my favourite version of tetris is "The New Tetris" for N64 (not Tetris Sphere). It's the one where you have to form cubes that then congeal together and create multipliers for the lines. (Gold=x10, Silver=x5) Anyone else play this?
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
Sweet.
09/02/09