Papers on the importance of respecting and supporting NDErs

These papers focus on emphasising the importance of respecting and supporting NDErs with their experiences and recovery. Unlike many other 'studies', these papers actually acknowledge phenomena like verdicial NDEs and other anomalies. They admit that these experiences are difficult to explain and even criticise those who cynically dismiss or ignore these elements. 

First article:
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/756201

...Though many reductionistic explanations have been proffered, NDEs appear very difficult to explain in terms of typical psychological or neurological mechanisms (Fenwick, 1997; French, 2005)...

...In their commentary article for this symposium, Lilia Samoilo and Diane Corcoran (2020) describe a gap of care for patients who experience an NDE. A gap of care is experienced when self-reports are "ignored, disregarded as non-factual or misdiagnosed as a hallucination due to post-traumatic stress (PTS), hypoxia, a negative reaction to drugs, anesthesia or mental illness, causing them to lose confidence in expressing their NDE, for fear of stigma."...

...The stories in this symposium help to explain the difficulty that scientifically-minded people often have with NDE accounts. Most people who share their story also interpret their story. One storyteller refers to her "soul" seeing what happened in the operating room; another says that she wanted to stay with Jesus. Such interpretations of experience may make it difficult to believe any aspect of the stories for individuals who don't believe in a soul or that Jesus lives today. Second, some of the storytellers go on to refer to other unusual experiences, such as UFO sightings—things that most people view with great suspicion. Of course, none of this changes the fact that veridical NDEs have been described by individuals with no history of mental illness, and that approximately 20% of patients who experience cardiac arrest and resuscitation in a medical setting report an NDE when they are asked (Hagan III, 2018)...

...Perhaps a key lesson from these stories is that we do not need to be able to explain a phenomenon in order to accept its existence; in fact, we only begin seeking to understand a thing when we first accept the existence of the thing...

...Patients want to be listened to without judgment. They don't expect others to understand what happened, but want others to believe that they really had an experience.

This first article lists authors who gave commentaries on recorded NDEs as part of their study: Diane Corcoran RN, PhD, COL (Ret); Lilia Somoilo, BS; Jeffrey P. Bishop, MD, PhD and Rev. Betty M. Glover, MSW, M.Div. 


Second article:
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/756188

...Wanting to share their experience and needing answers to their many questions, they seek comfort and support from medical staff, clergy, and family. They fear they will not be believed, or worse, will be rejected, ridiculed, mocked, or misdiagnosed as having a break with reality and will be prescribed unwarranted drug therapy...

...The patient's need to discuss their event is the cornerstone of their attempt to process and "normalize" not only their trauma but the life-changing NDE that follows. Disregarding the necessity to collect it, or improperly responding to it, disrupts the patient's ability to process and integrate their experience. This gap impedes patient recovery and may exacerbate the numerous after-effects of an NDE...

...Because NDEs are profoundly impactful, most experiencers can tell you the details of their NDE decades after their event. In some cases, people have a clinical crisis with after-effects but do not remember anything about the experience (Arnold). While others may recall the event over time (Batts), some will never remember having an NDE, but will experience after-effects...

...Despite beliefs, medical professionals should recognize NDEs are not a mental illness, and patients should not be medicated for reporting their experience (McKenzie). This lack of recognition of an NDE raises bioethical concerns...

...Curricula should include research evidence, common characteristics, after-effects, impact on patients and families, and the need for validation, education, and support. Since NDEs are invisible to the sight of others, education is imperative so that providers can supportively elicit self-report of the NDE and offer appropriate care and resources for the individual. In addition, education will help differentiate NDE characteristics from other medical conditions, to avoid misdiagnosis...

...Since the majority of NDEs happen outside the hospital setting (O'Brien and McKenzie) all healthcare professionals should be NDE-trained, including primary care physicians, mental health and social work professionals, paramedics, nurses, hospice personnel and medics...

...Why are some in the medical community not recognizing this gap? Are they disputing NDE research regarding causative factors? Might it be due to personal bias, a lack of knowledge, or the disbelief that life continues beyond clinical death? No matter their reasons, a patient's report and need for validation, education, and support should be paramount. Not doing so will further traumatize the patient...

This study cites numerous examples of NDEs that we might have discussed on here before, but I'm not too sure. There aren't as many references here unfortunately. They do, interestingly, advocate for the recognition of IANDS and that NDErs should be directed to them for 'education and support'.

Very interesting, OmniVN.

I wonder what Ralph Lewis would make of this. It is odd that many medical professionals are well informed and accepting of the phenomenon, whilst others still regard it as a load of nonsense, if not quite in those terms.

It was nice to see my friend Raymond's NDE is recounted in there. He was kind enough to send me his full experience which I reproduced here a while back.

These articles impress me as they're some of the only ones I've seen from academics that recognise veridical content and other anomalies can be found in many NDEs and aren't so easily explained away. I applaud them for encouraging doctors and scientists to be open-minded about them and ready to help experiencers. It's sad hearing about the reports some of the patients give, such as one woman who was told not to mention any of the religious or spiritual aspects of her experience or she'd be labelled a schizophrenic, or simply just delusional.

These articles impress me as they're some of the only ones I've seen from academics that recognise veridical content and other anomalies can be found in many NDEs and aren't so easily explained away. I applaud them for encouraging doctors and scientists to be open-minded about them and ready to help experiencers. It's sad hearing about the reports some of the patients give, such as one woman who was told not to mention any of the religious or spiritual aspects of her experience or she'd be labelled a schizophrenic, or simply just delusional.

I'm not as impressed by these two papers, even though I have to recognize that they appear to be more open-minded than the vast majority up to now. They show the signs of some careful word crafting to get past the paradigm police.

The following is the abstract to the first paper:

"This symposium includes twelve personal narratives from individuals who have had a near-death experience (NDE) in medical or surgical settings. It also includes three commentaries on these narratives by experts in NDEs, healthcare ethics, spiritual counseling, and chaplaincy. The stories and commentaries highlight how healthcare workers' reactions to NDEs may have long-term positive or negative effects on patients and their families. The symposium identifies gaps in care and provides a road map for nonjudgmental and supportive responses to NDEs."

This is what is first scanned when looking at the article. It is careful not to even hint that NDEs may have a nonmaterialist explanation. The operative sentence is "The symposium identifies gaps in care and provides a road map for nonjudgmental and supportive responses to NDEs." The focus of the symposium and the paper is on care of NDEers regardless of the real nature of the NDEs, but with the unspoken assumption that NDEs are somehow at base physical brain disorders. Probably both the symposium being held and the paper being published were not possible without this tiptoeing around the core issue.

The following is the abstract to the second referenced paper:

"This commentary discusses the twelve stories in which patients tell what happened when they were hospitalized and they had a near-death experience. The stories display a consistent theme of the gap in medical and spiritual care they received, after the patient's near-death experience. This commentary explores the implications of this gap in care for these patients and the perceived medical professionals' bias that occurs after these experiences, which can contribute to long-term consequences such as isolation and rejection. Education in medical schools and continuing education can provide medical professionals with insights needed to support individuals with near-death experiences."

In the abstract they are careful not to even hint that NDEs may have a spiritual not a materialist neurological explanation. Note that it refers to the NDEs as "stories" though admitting that they can have life changing effects . Both the abstract and the body of the paper tiptoe around the underlying explanation issue and concentrate on the issue of problems in the care of NDEers (with the unspoken assumption that the NDEs themselves are strictly a neurological phenomenon having various psychological consequences). Of course, patient care is after all part of the subject matter of this particular journal.

I think this was necessary for it to be published. It also helped that the journal isn't about "hard science", which would have ensured its rejection. 

So, these papers may be some sort of sign of a loosening of the strangle hold of the materialist neurological paradigm, but only the very first hint of such a revolutionary change.

I'm not as impressed by these two papers, even though I have to recognize that they appear to be more open-minded than the vast majority up to now. They show the signs of some careful word crafting to get past the paradigm police.

The following is the abstract to the first paper:



This is what is first scanned when looking at the article. It is careful not to even hint that NDEs may have a nonmaterialist explanation. The operative sentence is "The symposium identifies gaps in care and provides a road map for nonjudgmental and supportive responses to NDEs." The focus of the symposium and the paper is on care of NDEers regardless of the real nature of the NDEs, but with the unspoken assumption that NDEs are somehow at base physical brain disorders. Probably both the symposium being held and the paper being published were not possible without this tiptoeing around the core issue.

The following is the abstract to the second referenced paper:



In the abstract they are careful not to even hint that NDEs may have a spiritual not a materialist neurological explanation. Note that it refers to the NDEs as "stories" though admitting that they can have life changing effects . Both the abstract and the body of the paper tiptoe around the underlying explanation issue and concentrate on the issue of problems in the care of NDEers (with the unspoken assumption that the NDEs themselves are strictly a neurological phenomenon having various psychological consequences). Of course, patient care is after all part of the subject matter of this particular journal.

I think this was necessary for it to be published. It also helped that the journal isn't about "hard science", which would have ensured its rejection. 

So, these papers may be some sort of sign of a loosening of the strangle hold of the materialist neurological paradigm, but only the very first hint of such a revolutionary change.

Fair comment, although I (personally) disagree with a couple of points. As an aside, what has always worried me about where this whole thing (the NDE phenomenon) might be going, is if it ends up being given too much importance in a hospital setting.

If in the future, if or when it becomes accepted that NDE's are exactly what they appear to be,  I don't see why there needs to be a big song and dance about it, excessively training up doctors to deal with NDE symptoms, whatever they may be.

Surely as long as doctors know the basics, that's all that matters and we can all move on to something else. Most nurses are well aware of these experiences anyway.