Neural Voices of Patients with Severe Brain Injury?
Matthew Owen, Darren Hight, Anthony G. Hudetz
Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics : CQ : the international journal of healthcare ethics committees January 3, 2025 DOI: 10.1017/s0963180124000446 (opens in new tab)
Study at a glance
AI-extracted from the abstract| Characteristics | Theoretical or philosophical paper Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Keywords | Cognitive motor dissociation Covert consciousness Hylomorphism Mental causation Neuroethics Patient autonomy Physicalism |
| Key points | Argues that the causal exclusion problem in nonreductive physicalism casts doubt on interpreting neural activity as indicating a conscious response, while a hylomorphism-inspired mind-body powers model supports such interpretation. |
Abstract
Studies have shown that some covertly conscious brain-injured patients, who are behaviorally unresponsive, can reply to simple questions via neuronal responses. Given the possibility of such neuronal responses, Andrew Peterson et al. have argued that there is warrant for some covertly conscious patients being included in low-stakes medical decisions using neuronal responses, which could protect and enhance their autonomy. The justification for giving credence to alleged neuronal responses must be analyzed from various perspectives, including neurology, bioethics, law, and as we suggest, philosophy of mind. In this article, we analyze the warrant for giving credence to neuronal responses from two different views in philosophy of mind. We consider how nonreductive physicalism's causal exclusion problem elicits doubt about interpreting neural activity as indicating a conscious response. By contrast, such an interpretation is supported by the mind-body powers model of neural correlates of consciousness inspired by hylomorphism.