From the conclusions of that report:
These experiences are generally pleasant and have positive life changing effects on the individual. The majority of patients with NDEs find it difficult to discuss their experiences with caregivers as well as family and close friends. Physicians and other caregivers therefore should be aware of these phenomena and advise patients accordingly. Interestingly, there are a small proportion of cardiac arrest survivors who have reported being conscious and aware of events during resuscitation and have recalled ‘seeing’ specific details that would not have been known to them.
Straight in, we have them advising people that they should be aware of NDE's - fair enough, if there's something weird people should be aware there could be side effects. But, we have what I like to look at as a key phrase: "survivors who have reported". So straight away, we're working on anecdote not something scientifically tested.
These experiences have been recalled, while cerebral function has, through many studies, been shown to be severely compromised and electrical activity in both the cerebral cortex and the deeper structures of the brain have been shown to be absent.
Note the use of "compromised" and not non-existent. So we have compromised function, and yet electrical activity is "absent". Which is it? Or am I missing something where the brain can function (all be it not as normal) without electrical activity?
I also note that they reference a lot here, but not the studies that show this "absence of activity". Not saying it's BS, but that would be a key point to have backed up.
From a scientific point of view, the occurrence of these experiences would therefore seem highly improbable and paradoxical. However, the fact that they do occur, raises some questions regarding our current views on the nature of human consciousness and its relationship with the brain.
They aren't showing evidence they occur outside of anecdote, simply going in with a blanket "they occur". They then move swiftly on to a "what is consciousness debate" which you can read in the conclusions yourself.
If the occurrence of NDEs during a cardiac arrest, when the mind (the collection of all our thoughts, feelings and emotions) and consciousness (self awareness) appear to continue at a time when the brain is non-functional and clinical criteria of death have been reached, can be proven objectively through large studies, then this will lend some support to this view.
Here we have them making it clear that they have nothing to support the whole "NDE's whilst brain dead" etc arguments. They are also (if you read above this briefly) bringing spirituality into the equation and their view is that it is potentially a new branch.
Such studies are currently possible, and it has been proposed to test the claims of ‘consciousness’ and being able to ‘see’ during cardiac arrest objectively by use of hidden targets that are only visible from a vantage point above.
Bingo, they are pointing out what needs to be done, but not actually doing it.
My problem here lies in that there is (as indicated above) a very simple way to test these claims. If you really want to be scientific, do as I said earlier and perform an act that is incredibly out of keeping with the environment of a hospital (my clown in the theatre idea).
If a person wakes up and says they saw a clown in the theatre - you know there's something going on.
It is the lack of control and the fact that current studies are based heavily on anecdote that reduces the plausibility of them. Definitely let them go as a good start, but they don't prove anything outside of NDE stories (and that's all they are right now) existing and capturing peoples attention.
As I said before, they start off saying "people report NDE's" and then finish with exactly the same thing. No explanation, no support the exist, no nothing.
