Introduction: Reconsidering Disorders of Consciousness in Light of Neuroscientific Evidence

A diagnostic illusory? The case of distinguishing between "vegetative" and "minimally conscious" states

Throughout affluent societies there are growing numbers of people who survive severe brain injuries only to be left with long-term chronic disorders of consciousness. This patient group who exist betwixt and between life and death are variously diagnosed as in 'comatose', 'vegetative', and, more recently, 'minimally conscious' states. Drawing on a nascent body of sociological work in this field and developments in the sociology of diagnosis in concert with Bauman's thesis of 'ambivalence' and Turner's work on 'liminality', this article proposes a concept we label as diagnostic illusory in order to capture the ambiguities, nuanced complexities and tensions that the biomedical imperative to name and classify these patients give rise to. Our concept emerged through a reading of debates within medical journals alongside an analysis of qualitative data generated by way of a study of accounts of those close to patients: primarily relatives (N = 51); neurologists (N = 4); lawyers (N = 2); and others (N = 5) involved in their health care in the UK.

Reporting consciousness in coma: media framing of neuro-scientific research, hope, and the response of families with relatives in vegetative and minimally conscious states

This paper examines the public representation of, and family responses to, scientific studies into consciousness in coma-like states. We examine the publicity surrounding high-profile studies using functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) on 'vegetative' or 'minimally conscious' patients and compare this with family views. Our findings show how, with a few notable exceptions, the research was presented as an amazing breakthrough offering a potential 'voice' and choice for patients and hope and comfort for their families. We argue that such representations ignored key limitations, evoked unrealistic visions of recovery, and promoted very narrow representations of family reactions. The comparison between public representations of the science and responses from families with experience of this issue highlights the complex social/medical world into which neurotechnologies intervene, and points to the absence of a range of patient/family perspectives in public discourse. We conclude with suggestions for how those promoting the research, and the journalists reporting its implications, could act to ensure more responsible coverage and enhance public debate.