ARE NEAR DEATH EXPERIENCES THE FINAL MOMENTS OF LIFE?
OR, CAN THE
BRAIN DIE AND RETURN TO LIFE?
Melvin L
Morse MD spiritualscientific.com
This is one of the most hotly debated
issues in near death research. It is one of the most divisive points among the
researchers, so much so that the major researchers have for years been
unwilling to issue a unified statement on just what a near death experience
is. Bruce Greyson (The Dean of Near
Death Research) sent out a survey many years ago asking the major researchers
to define what is near death, and he found enormous differences. I more recently attempted to write a joint
paper with the other major researchers and again, this was a significant
divisive issue.
Oddly enough, although I am one of the
few researchers who has actually resuscitated my own patients and then asked
them what it was like to die, I had not really considered the subject at all
until I recently met with Peter Fenwick in Miami in 2008. I have always used the term “clinical death”
to describe the near death state, meaning that without the intervention of
modern medicine, the patient will die.
The term “death” itself is enormously controversial, with numerous
legal, ethical, and practical meanings and definitions, as we can keep the body
alive with virtually complete brain death indefinitely.
WHAT ABOUT
EEG STUDIES ON PATIENTS WHO HAVE HAD NDEs?
Yeah, what about them? They are not a myth. I personally spoke with Fred Schoonmaker in
1993 about his research on EEGs at the point of death. He did over 2000 EEGs on dying patients, in
an effort in understand what the EEG tracings were of a dying patient, and if
they were helpful in understanding what was true “brain death”. Many of these patients survived and went to
share with him their near death experiences.
He told me that he had over 300 examples of patients with flat EEGs who
reported near death experiences. He
published this in Anabiosis in 1979 (the forerunner to the current Journal of
Near Death Studies.) However, he was extremely vague about the entire
situation, as he was more interested in his work on EEGs in dying patients. He
never published his data in the mainstream medical literature, and his article
in Anabiosis lacks many of the details neurosciences would love to have.
WHAT ABOUT
MY PATIENTS? WEREN’T THEY BRAIN DEAD?
Yes, in reality, they were truly brain
dead. Most of them had fixed and dilated
pupils, lacked protective reflexes such as a gag reflex, and often were starved
of oxygen for over 10 minutes. However,
when we published our work in the 1980s and 1990s, our team felt it was far too
controversial to make the claim that these patients had truly died and come back
to life. We wanted to publish in
mainstream medical journals, so we took the approach that previous authors had
taken, that they represent the final few moments of life. Dr. Fenwick prodded me to reassess our data,
and in fact most of the patients were truly brain dead by any criteria. However, as a statement to the scientific
community, it hardly seems right to re-interpret our data long after the
initial fact of publication.
WHY IS THIS
IMPORTANT? (LESSONS FROM THE LIGHT)
If patients can truly have a biologically
dead brain, and still retain consciousness and return to life, this would seem
to prove without a doubt that consciousness survives the death of the
brain. It further seems to prove that
consciousness or the mind does not depend on brain function. This is why there are so many attempts to
document dramatic cases in which patients have been dead for hours and still
returned to life. Fortunately, the issue
is now completely moot. (It no longer
matters) Any reasonable review of the
scientific literature clearly documents that consciousness persists in
extraordinarily dysfunctional if not completely dead brains. Frankly I find the fact that there is a
consensus of scientific research supporting the idea that we survive bodily
death to be far more compelling than dramatic stories. Science now supports the concept that first
came consciousness, and in turn we evolved brains to allow us to experience and
learn lessons in this reality essential for our spiritual growth. (This is
known as “top down” causation, meaning consciousness comes first. Bottom up or “upward” causation is the
conventional view that first came atoms, then molecules, then groups of
molecules, then cells, as so forth until we evolved as human beings. Upward causation has always had a problem
with consciousness, and how it could have evolved in such a way. Most materialists, or upward causation
scientists see consciousness as a by product of brain function, not a primary
cause of brain function.
WHY I DON’T
THINK IT IS IMPORTANT (And Why I Ignored the Advice of the Great Ian Stevenson)
For over 150 years, consciousness
research has been dominated by the search for the “white crow” as William James
called it. By this he meant that if we
find a white crow feather, that proves that not all crows are black. Similarly, if we can find one dramatic case
it which the brain is definitely dead and yet the person has a near death
experience, then that would seem to prove that consciousness survives
independently of a dead brain. When I
was a young man, I served with Ian Stevenson on the Science Board of the
legendary National Institute of Discovery Science, led by Robert Bigelow of
Bigelow Aeronautics. I asked him what
his advice was to me as I was starting in consciousness research. He stated that I should find and carefully
document that one case in which someone had a proven dead brain, had a near
death experience, and returned from the experience with information that they
could not have obtained in any other way.
I immediately thought to myself, but wait a doggone minute! Didn’t Meyers, at the turn of the last
century do exactly that, documenting two gigantic volumes of such case
histories. And didn’t Ian Stevenson
devote his career to exactly that? And
it hasn’t made a bit of difference.
Instead, I feel that we need to create a body of research, numerous
small research studies which build on each other, and in turn, create the New
Paradigm.
"
alt=tacomaglass.jpg v:shapes="Picture_x0020_0">
alt=morsehickman.jpg v:shapes="Picture_x0020_4">
On the left is the Tacoma Glass Museum
featuring the work of Dale Chihuly. Above
is the legendary Robert Hickman, one of my professors and the inventor of the
Hickman line.
It was an amazing honor that Dr. Hickman
came to my lecture in Tacoma and I was very proud that he told me he liked it.