Rom Houben

Rom Houben is a Belgian vegetative state patient. His condition is due to a car accident in 1983. His caregivers say he was contrary to the original medical diagnosis from the outset fully conscious. The case was taken up in 2009 by the magazine Der Spiegel and discussed internationally in the sequence, especially in the context of the ethical debate about euthanasia. Numerous media showed footage should be shown where, as Houben with facilitated communication (FC) via a keyboard the outside world communicates. However, a study in 2010 was able to refute the assertion of his communication ability - his alleged statements came in reality from the FC assistant.

Background

Diagnosed in 2006, the Belgian neurologist Steven Laureys, the locked-in syndrome in Houben. Houben was not only perceptive in his view, but also be able to communicate. Houbens If found (still without explicit attribution ) input in a study on the Laureys first time in July 2009 in a medical journal reported. In this study, Laureys presented, inter alia, the assertion that over 40 percent of all coma patients are misdiagnosed. The Belgian physician was then contacted by its own account from the German news magazine Der Spiegel, the report on the study, but the subject wanted to illustrate with a " human case ." He had then obtain the contact to Houben and his family. The reporting of the mirror met with great response from the international media: Houbens fate of heated debate about the reliability of neurological diagnostic methods that adequate therapy and forms of care and euthanasia from.

Controversy

Already soon after the first reports were numerous critics who doubt the story or individual details anmeldeten. The skeptic James Randi assumed based on the footage that the method, with the Houben is communicating, an example of the controversial facilitated communication is. This method conveys the appearance that the person notifying undermine itself in truth came the testimony of the assistant. Randi calls the story a "cruel farce " and calls for a clear proof that there really is Houben, the disclosing himself, and not his assistant ..

The American bioethicist, Jacob Appel interpreted the case as " wishful thinking " or a " cruel and manipulative dizziness " which will used by conservative forces in PR campaigns of the right to euthanasia.

The bioethicist Arthur Caplan holds the quotes that are attributed Houben, implausible: The clarity of statements is difficult to understand at a man who for 23 years had not been able to communicate.

For Stephan Brandt, a neurologist at the Charité, the case is " more than unusual "; he considers it " likely that it is constructed ."

Laureys initially held firmly to the correctness of his diagnosis. According to the Times he had also checked the communication method, in which he missed his helper showed Houbens things to which this later was able to remember. In an interview with the Belgian Standaard he has this but now revised and emphasizes that it has nothing to do with the choice of communication method. He would remain the supported communication even skeptical about the " right to have a bad reputation " have to some extent. However, he also criticizes those skeptics that the procedure " solely on the basis of some video images " criticized: "We want to deal with from time to time in a scientific manner with the various forms of communication. This seems to us to be the right way. " This check is now done so and found that the assistant typed the messages, not Houben. Therefore, as Laureys, a communication with Houben must now be found with other methods.

After another test Laureys admitted finally, the method of based communication was not working and Houben was not able to communicate. Nevertheless, his consciousness is his view, higher than previously thought.