Talk:Near-death experience

Needs more work

This will need further work. For instance, the "commonly reported experiences" are copied from the source where the are simply a list, and not a sequence of steps. They need to be expanded. --Peter Schmitt 12:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Found some references that might be of interest. The first four aare available as free full text, and the first might be particularly valuable

1. Blackmore SJ (1996) Near-death experiences J R Soc Med 89:73-6. Review. PMID 8683504
2. Greyson B (2003) Near-death experiences in a psychiatric outpatient clinic population Psychiatr Serv 54:1649-51 PMID 14645808
3. Griffith LJ (2009) Near-death experiences and psychotherapy Psychiatry (Edgmont)6:35-42 PMID 20011577
4. Klemenc-Ketis et al. (2010) The effect of carbon dioxide on near-death experiences in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survivors: a prospective observational study Crit Care 14:R56 PMID 20377847
5. Greyson B (2010) Hypercapnia and hypokalemia in near-death experiences Crit Care 14:420 PMID 20519028
6. Beauregard M et al. (2009) Brain activity in near-death experiencers during a meditative state Resuscitation 80:1006-10 PMID 19573975
7. Belanti J et al. (2008)Phenomenology of near-death experiences: a cross-cultural perspective Transcult Psychiatry 45:121-33 PMID 18344255
8. Lai CF et al. (2008)Impact of near-death experiences on dialysis patients: a multicenter collaborative study Am J Kidney Dis 2007 50:124-32, 132.e1-2 PMID 17591532
9. Parnia S et al. (2007) Near death experiences, cognitive function and psychological outcomes of surviving cardiac arrest Resuscitation 74:215-21 PMID 17416449
10. Greyson B (2007) Consistency of near-death experience accounts over two decades: are reports embellished over time? Resuscitation 73:407-11 PMID 17289247
11. French CC (2005) Near-death experiences in cardiac arrest survivors Prog Brain Res150:351-67. Review PMID 16186035

Gareth Leng 15:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the article needs more work but when I searched for this topic it came up as needing a brief overview. It was not asking for a full length fully researched article. Also, being a wiki it should be expected that others would contribute to writing an article. As my mother used to say "many hands make light work" and she was right. It's also a lot of fun when we can work together collaboratively to get the job done.Mary Ash 16:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

And here's some more links you can check out:

http://www.nderf.org/

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104397005

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1657919,00.html

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-10-16/health/cheating.near.death_1_geraghty-cardiac-arrest-school-bus?_s=PM:HEALTH

http://www.livescience.com/health/080912-near-death.html

http://www.iands.org/pubs/jnds/

• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1295660/

• http://folk.uio.no/benjamil/neardeath/neardeath5d.pdf

• http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=2F8W3MAXCVIC&oi=fnd&pg=PA4&dq=%22near+death+experiences%22&ots=qBCQiCh_sR&sig=RZcdCoCB7vY4cZ-BXMkvhWv94DI#v=onepage&q&f=false

• http://www.ethicsforschools.org/nde/death.htm

• http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/137/10/1193

• http://www.resuscitationjournal.com/article/S0300-9572%2800%2900328-2/abstract

• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7403383

• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22near%20death%20experiences%22&itool=QuerySuggestion

• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2887177/?tool=pubmed

• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2790400/?tool=pubmed

• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17289247

• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16534440

Mary Ash 18:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

A list of links, without analysis, doesn't really help; each would have to be read. I'm afraid this article assumes the existence of NDEs and looks for support. NDEs are by no means an accepted phenomenon in medicine. Howard C. Berkowitz 18:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Highly questionable assertion

"NDEs occur once a person's heart function stops causing the blood supply to cut off to the brain. This usually takes between 11 to 20 seconds once the heart function ends. An electroencephalogram (EEG) reading taken during this time will show a flat brain waves."

Sorry, but this is just wrong. In a patient with normal body temperature, it takes 4-5 minutes (240-300 seconds) of no effective cardiac action for there to be significant brain damage, and, even then, it's not an isoelectric EEG. Other factors can extend the time. Until I get my new pacemaker on Tuesday, I'm sure, from previous experience, I've had several cardiac pauses in the 15 second range. Howard C. Berkowitz 18:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

This is an exact quote from the article: So what's so baffling about NDEs? We know that when a person's heart stops, the decline in brain function caused by a cut in blood supply is steep. Simultaneous recording of heart rate and brain output shows that within 11 to 20 secs. of the heart failing, the brain waves go flat. A flat electroencephalogram (EEG) recording doesn't suggest mere impairment. It points to the brain having shut down. Longtime NDE researcher Pim van Lommel, a retired Dutch cardiologist, has likened the brain in this state to a "computer with its power source unplugged and its circuits detached. It couldn't hallucinate. It couldn't do anything at all." Perhaps I wrote this section poorly, and if you can rewrite it to reflect the exact quote above go for it. As this statement is made by a retired Dutch cardiologist, who is a medical doctor, the claim has validity. I'd suggest having one of our medical personnel review this statement and add updated information, if that's available. Mary Ash 18:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1657919-2,00.html#ixzz1D6xJFWZj

I don't consider Time Magazine an authoritative source on the subject and I'm not going to go and read it. It's a bad source for an encyclopedic article. My textbook on cardiopulmonary bypass is a lot more authoritative. Given that there are journal articles, I see no point at all in going to news magazines.

Time doesn't really tell if the cardiologist is current or not, and I'm not going to argue with Time when, for example, protocols for determination of death say something quite different. Flatline EEG is generally consistent with death, not near death, although such things as brain perfusion are preferable to EEG.

As written, this article comes across as assuming that NDEs are common and scientifically confirmed. It's more correct to say that a minority of people who have been resuscitated, report a generally consistent experience. Howard C. Berkowitz 18:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The article clearly states 23 million people have experienced NDEs. That is a clear cut number. As to the rest, and what I posted in the forum, have one of our medical doctors review the article for accuracy.Mary Ash 05:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Time Magazine is not a reasonable source. I have gone through the actual medical articles and none make a sweeping statement about how many people have experienced the phenomenon. Howard C. Berkowitz 06:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

{unindent} Howard a Time magazine reporter was interviewing a retired medical doctor about this. An MD is an MD and his testimony is expert testimony. Two other medical doctors are referenced in the article along with a psychologist who taught at the university level. All would be considered expert witnesses and investigators. You can go to PubMed and you will find all kinds of information concerning this subject. In fact, here's a link to get you started: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=near-death%20experiences. Have fun!Mary Ash 06:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

"An MD is an MD". Blatantly untrue. If it were true, there would be no specialties. Indeed, neurology would be more relevant.

You cannot make the assertion they would be experts. In law -- and I have been an expert witness -- the court makes the determination. In science, the state of expertise comes from professional practice, not the opinions of a general circulation magazine.

I have gone to PubMed many times. The very fact that again, you throw out a generic search in the claim that it supports your argument shows a lack of understanding of the process. Journal impact factor cannot be considered based on a search. Howard C. Berkowitz 07:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Howard part of research is going through the documents. I posted a link for near-death experiences which you can explore at your leisure. There are many to choose from and I did search PubMed for this article by typing in Near-Death Experiences.Mary Ash 07:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Mary, it is not part of CZ research to require others to go through a general bibliography. Spot-checking a few of the specific reference, I'm concerned that they were cherry-picked.

Further, you aren't responding to the point that general science reporting is questionable for encyclopedic articles, at least as authoritative statements as Gareth explains below. Howard C. Berkowitz 12:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep cool

On some key points - "near death experiences" (meaning a consistently reported set of experiences generally in situations of oxytgen deprivation) are indeed common. How common is very questionable - Howard is quite right in that what an MD says in an interview is evidence of his opinion but not evidence of any facts; but it is attributed in the article to an individual. The experiences are fairly well documented and seem to have a reasonably well understood physiological basis. I've no idea what the heat is about this article. In my experience, what science journalists report is often wrong in almost every significant detail, but usually there's some snippet of a foundation. Of course, what journalists say is important to know even when it's wrong, because their version may be what becomes the public perception. So we have two things that need to be known: a) what journalists say (and what the common or public understanding is) and b) the facts.

Anyway; I think this is an interesting topic and you've made a great start to it Mary. Gareth Leng 11:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure. While I have seen no trustworthy figures about their total incidence in the total population, there certainly are legitimate articles that state that they are reported in a substantial minority of patients who have been resuscitated, and had adequate neurological function to describe their experience. Scanning the cited abstracts, but not doing a formal combination of samples, it would appear to be in the 10-20% range.

My specific concern was the statement that brain activity, as evidenced by an isoelectric EEG, ceases within seconds after cessation of cardiac activity. Actually, I'd be interested in knowing the provenance of that claim, since patients in critical care rarely have EEG monitoring. "The value of routine EEG monitoring during cardiac surgery is controversial", from Gravlee, Davis & Utley, Cardiopulmonary Bypass: Principles and Practice. Nevertheless, the body of experience in resuscitation is that brain activity continues for short minutes before irreversible damage begins, and, even then, there would be a declining, not sudden, stop of energy detectable on EEG.

My more general concern is that general journalistic reports are not always, as in this case, appropriate sources. They are clearly necessary in such things as current politics and war, when the journalist is a direct observer or has unique access to policymakers (especially when non-anonymous). For science and engineering, however, there is almost always a more authoritative source. Howard C. Berkowitz 12:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Near-death EEG

In rats, after decapitation, peaks after about one minute, and then flattens. --Daniel Mietchen 15:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)