Studying death and near‐death experiences requires neuroscientific expertise
C. Martial, O. Gosseries, H. Cassol, D. Kondziella
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences August 26, 2022 DOI: 10.1111/nyas.14888 (opens in new tab) via Semantic Scholar
Summary
AI-generated from the abstractThis commentary criticizes a recent paper by Parnia and colleagues that proposed guidelines for studying death and near-death experiences. The authors argue that the original paper contains omissions and knowledge gaps, including incorrect neurological claims about brain death and misunderstandings about consciousness terminology. While the commentators agree that research on near-death experiences needs a framework, they contend that the Parnia paper is misleading and, despite its intentions, actually impedes scientific understanding of near-death experiences and the neural mechanisms of the dying brain.
Study at a glance
| Characteristics | Commentary Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Keywords | Medicine Psychology |
| Citations | 17 |
| Key finding | Argues that a recent paper by Parnia and colleagues contains incorrect neurological claims about brain death and misunderstandings about consciousness terminology, making it misleading for near-death research. |
Abstract
Parnia et al. recently published suggestions for the study of death and experiences recalled in a near‐death context. We have serious reservations about the authors’ statements. In this commentary, we discuss the omissions and knowledge gaps inherent to the authors’ paper, which among others include incorrect neurological claims about brain death and misunderstandings regarding the terminology of consciousness. Although we believe that (near‐)death research deserves a framework guideline, the paper by Parnia and colleagues is misleading and, contrary to the authors' intention, hinders the scientific understanding of near‐death experiences and the neural mechanisms occurring in the dying brain.