I’m sure nearly everyone reading this has at least heard something of the story of Rom Houben. He’s the Belgian man who was paralyzed by a car accident in 1983 and, for 23 years, he was thought to be in a coma, though in 2006 it was discovered he was, in fact, conscious. It’s been running as a human interest story all over the place.
Why is this a topic for skeptics? On the surface, it isn’t. There’s nothing impossible about it. Diagnosing (hell, even defining!) consciousness is a tricky thing. I have no doubt that brain scanning technology in 2006 is orders of magnitude better than it was in 1983. I might question the competence of the doctors back in 1983, but if there’s one thing you can count on in this life it’s that mistakes happen.
But there were two words in the first article I read that gave me pause. Those words were “special keyboard.” Mr. Houben has been able to communicate again with a special keyboard, and most news articles even included quotes like, “I will never forget the day they finally discovered what was wrong — it was my second birth.” That’s pretty poetic for someone who has essentially been staring at a wall for 23 years, and, if he was paralyzed so badly he was mistaken for being in a coma, I had trouble seeing how he could have enough dexterity to use any kind of keyboard…
That’s when I checked out video of Mr. Houben, like this one from the BBC. My worst expectations were confirmed — Houben is “communicating” via a long discredited technique known as facilitated communication. Even if you accepted the assumptions of facilitated communication, the example in the video stretches credulity. He’s typing faster on that pad than I probably could, and I have a tough time believing that someone who spent 23 years in conditions similar to solitary confinement would be so eloquent about the experience. Please note that I’m not accusing Mr. Houben’s family, doctors, or even the facilitator of being anything less than sincere.
Why, then, do I feel the need to point out that Mr. Houben probably isn’t communicating at all, and that the people around them have fallen for a delusion? Why can’t I just let people read a happy story and feel uplifted by it? And, I admit, a small part of me feels like a horrible cynic that the words “special keyboard” could make me so suspicious.
Here’s the reasons why it’s good to be skeptical, even of a feel good story like Mr. Houben’s.
- If Mr. Houben isn’t really communicating via the keyboard, then he’s being victimized. If we assume the doctors are right and he is conscious, then I can’t imagine anything worse for him than someone else saying they speak for him when they really don’t. It would be worse than being trapped, because not only would he be trapped, but now no one is looking for a real method to communicate with him.
- Suggesting without good evidence that someone in this kind of state can communicate breeds false hope. This point was demonstrated to me on a public bus last week. A woman was reading Houben’s story out loud from the paper and declaring that her mother had been in a vegetative state for a mere four days before the doctors told her nothing could be done. It’s probably safe to say that the medical situation was very different, but you can see where this whole story makes it sound like people in comas are just one keyboard away from being completely whole.
- When the deception is ended, it will leave people distrustful of doctors. Medicine should be based on good science, and facilitated communication is bad science. I wish Mr. Houben’s doctors were being more careful because, when the truth outs, most people will take away the lesson as “Doctors can’t be trusted” rather than “Pseudoscience can’t be trusted.”
- If a story conforms to your prejudices, that’s a good enough reason to be skeptical by itself. For example, take the death of Bill Sparkman. He was the Census worker found hanged in rural Kentucky back in September. If you’re of a liberal persuasion and inclined to think Deliverance was a documentary (guilty!) it was very easy to jump to conclusions about what happened to him. There was much handwringing in the media, like this Time article. It has since come to light that Sparkman committed suicide, though this hasn’t gotten as much press. Always wait until all the facts are in, and being a good critical thinker is the most useful skill you can have.
