VIDEO: DEEP BRAIN STIMULATION

Astonishing reaction to electrical stimulation
· Hope for others previously considered untreatable

  • The Guardian
  • Thursday August 2 2007

 Lateral X-Ray image of the patient showing the DBS leads implanted. deep brain stimulation video grab

Lateral X-Ray image of the patient showing the DBS leads implanted.

A man who spent more than six years in a near-vegetative state after a horrific assault has made a dramatic recovery following a pioneering treatment to stimulate his brain with electrical pulses.

The 38-year-old American suffered devastating brain damage during a street robbery in 1999, leaving him almost completely unconscious and in need of round-the-clock care. Doctors who performed emergency surgery on the man told his parents that if he survived the operation, his chances of recovery were zero.

The man, who was confined to a bed in a specialised nursing home, very rarely opened his eyes, occasionally tried to mouth words and move his head, but was otherwise unable to communicate and had to be fed through a tube. Following the new treatment the patient, who cannot be named, is able to recognise and talk to his doctors and family, eat and drink normally and perform basic movements, such as brushing his hair.

It is the first time the technique, called deep brain stimulation, has been used to treat a patient in what neuroscientists refer to as a minimally conscious state. It is also the first clear sign that it may be possible to rehabilitate people with such severe brain damage that they have previously been considered untreatable by modern medicine. "He was beaten and kicked around his head, his skull was completely crushed and he was left for dead," the man's mother told a press conference by telephone. "The doctors said if your son pulls out of this in the next 72 hours, and we don't know if he will, he will be a vegetable for the rest of his life. You need to make a decision about what you want to do." The patient spent five years in a nursing home and his parents gave permission for him not to be resuscitated should his condition suddenly deteriorate.

In August 2005, a team of doctors from three hospitals in the US asked the family if they wished their son to join an experimental study to test the new technique, which involves implanting 1mm-wide electrodes into the two regions of the brain closely linked to consciousness. The technique is already used to stimulate other areas of the brain to control tremors in people with Parkinson's disease. Several trials are under way to test its effectiveness at treating severe depression, obsessive compulsive disorder, and epilepsy.

With the parents' agreement, the man was fitted with brain electrodes that fed into twin regions of the central thalamus and hooked up to a pacemaker implanted under the skin of the chest during a 10-hour operation. He was then treated with electrical pulses for 480 days.

The surgeons hoped that the electrical pulses might kickstart activity in his brain and reawaken intact brain circuits. The results, reported in the journal Nature, were rapid and astonishing.

"After deep brain stimulation, we immediately saw some changes, literally within the first day," said neurophysiologist Joseph Giacino, who led the post surgical team at the JFK Johnson Rehabilitation Institute in Edison, New Jersey.

At first, the man opened his eyes and was able to track people as they moved around the room. Later, he regained the ability to speak a few words at a time and make careful, intentional limb movements. He is now fitted with implants that stimulate his brain every 12 hours.

"My son can now speak, watch a movie without falling asleep, drink from a cup, express pain, he can cry and laugh ... He can say 'I love you mum'. I still cry every time I see my son, but they're tears of joy," his mother said.

Doctors expect to see continuing improvements in his recovery.

Ali Rezai, a neurosurgeon at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, who led the team to place the electrodes, said: "When we first activated the pacemakers ... we looked at each other, the team humbled in many ways, but at the same time excited about the prospects and the potential of what can be done for these patients."

The team emphasise that the treatment might not work for all patients in a minimally conscious state. Estimates suggest up to 280,000 brain-damaged people may be in minimally conscious states in the US alone. Adrian Owen, who has studied patients in a vegetative state at the MRC cognition and brain sciences unit in Cambridge, said the case study was a "major step" toward treatment for others. "Clearly this suggests a possible treatment for some patients with MCS," he said.

Originally from Guardian Unlimited on August 7, 2007, 6:47pm

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.