LONE ROO'S COMMENT
Reynolds near-death experience has been put forward as evidence supporting an afterlife by proponents
such as cardiologist Michael Sabom in his book Light and Death, but critics say that the amount of time
which Reynolds was 'flatlined' is generally misrepresented and suggest that her NDE occurred
while under general anaesthesia when the brain was still active, hours before Reynolds underwent hypothermic
cardiac arrest.[3][full citation needed][4] Anesthesiologist Gerald Woerlee analyzed the case, and concluded
that Reynolds ability to perceive events during her surgery was the result of "anesthesia awareness"
.[5] According to the psychologist Chris French: Woerlee, an anesthesiologist with many years of clinical
experience, has considered this case in detail and remains unconvinced of the need for a paranormal explanation
... [He] draws attention to the fact that Reynolds could only give a report of her experience some time after she recovered from the anesthetic as she was still on OUR PHYSICAL DEATH I welcome your comments even though I disagree with your conclusions. . When you make the comment that " critics say the amount of time generally misrepresents the amount of time the patient spent flat-lined in her near death experiences" is ridiculous. The patient HAD TO BE FLAT-LINED FOR THE OPERATION TO TAKE PLACE. THERE COULD BE NO BLOOD FLOWING TO SNIP OFF THE ANEURYSM.
Her near-death experience started when the operation began and the flat line was observed and stopped when the operation finished.
BUILDING A FAITH ON A HOUSE OF COLLAPSING FACTS
SORRY, I DON'T HOLD THAT MUCH FAITH IN
Anesthesiologist Gerald Woerlee's theory
Woerlee’s main argument is built on Reynolds’ Outside
the Body Event OBE and that it began before the standstill and
flat EEG, and then taking the timeline apart he builds a house of cards using small details on which he constructs builds his rather large preconceived conclusion, but after checking what was actually said, it collapses. The theory also has
contradictions in itself: His statement follows:
“when one looks carefully at the timeline of her experience, one can
only conclude that the experiences of Pam Reynolds did not occur
during her period of hypothermic cardiac arrest.”
CONTINUING HIS QUOTE.
“Popular belief has it that the experiences of Pam Reynolds
all occurred
during her period of hypothermic cardiac arrest.
But
when one looks carefully at the timeline of her experience,
one can only
conclude that the experiences of Pam Reynolds did not occur
during her
period of hypothermic cardiac arrest,
and
that she was definitely not conscious during the
whole operation…
Instead,
her experience was a product
of anesthetic drugs, abnormal interpretations of bodily sensations..”[i]
END QUOTE
In the Journal of Near Death Studies, Michael Sabom answers this
criticism himself with:
“The question is not when Reynolds’s NDE began but when it ended.’[iv]
He also tells us that Reynolds described her NDE as ‘an uninterrupted,
continuous experience’ that according to her ended at the close of surgery around 2pm. At the end of the operation Reynolds describes that “they were feeding me” implying one of the last stages of the operation where the reinfusion of warmed blood took place."[v]
To start, Woerlee is not accurately stating the facts. The time frame
from OBE to this event clearly includes the standstill and flat EEG, and for Woerlee, to say that some parts of her NDE occurred before the standstill is to overlook Reynolds’ description of her NDE as an uninterrupted and continuous experience.
Then Woerlee attempts to explain what Reynolds saw during her NDE with
the very rare event of anesthesia awareness (0.1 - 0.2%), which is waking up, out
of anesthesia. In Reynold's operation there were three teams of doctors and
technicians closely monitoring her every life sign and function. The researchers on this account give the same answer to this theory: “the wildest speculation postulating a highly unlikely event.”[vi] One researcher added that it is not only a very creative and wild speculation but a gross contradiction in his theory. Woerlee had concluded in his theory that, “she was definitely not conscious during the whole operation.” To further collapse this house of cards, the fact alone that she saw the
bone saw during anesthesia is pretty amazing considering the fact that
both Reynolds’ eyes were taped shut and her ears filled with a molded
speaker with a clicking device.'
In BBC’s documentary “The Day I Died,” the operating surgeon
Dr. Spetzler clearly says that, “at that stage in the operation, nobody can
observe, hear in that state…I don’t have an explanation for it.”
Here Woerlee simply dismisses the whole BBC documentary as
“incredibly misleading and inaccurate”
Woerlee concluded: “She could hear clearly”
Author and cardiologist Dr. Sabom actually talked to Steven Cordova,
the intraoperative technologist who inserted the molded speakers into
Reynolds’ ear. He explains that not only where the speakers molded but
also put into the ear with “tape and gauze” that would cover the “whole
ear pinnae” and making it “extremely unlikely that Reynolds could have
physically overheard operating room conversations one hour and
twenty five minutes after anesthesia had been introduced.”[viii]
Dr. Spetzler’s concluded about this whole claim: while the evidence to
support Woerlee’s conclusion is too far out and much too creative to
be generally accepted. He, apparently, is using the typical analytical
smear tactic where he looks for holes--which is always there in human
interpretation and also OK for advancing knowledge, but then he seems
to exploit these holes to fill in way too much of his own preconceived
conclusions without evidence and by overlooking important facts."
Personally, I believe one thing missing in all this discussion is the
human side. Brave as Pam Reynolds might be, she had be be apprehensive entering into this operation. They were going to put her to death—everyone of the markers determining death would be passed. Isn't one reason she was so, closely monitered.
PLEASE
EXCUSE MY REFERENCE AND COMPARISON TO MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE , Generally speaking , on entering the operating
room, your mind is occupied with the coming operation and the outcome
I imagine, what you're thinking about depends
on how life-threatening the surgery is--I knew my surgery would open up my chest and things could go wrong, however it was nothing as life- threatening as
Reynold's. Frankly I wouldn't say I was overanxious--I was able to joke with
the nurses, and with my eyes not taped I
did catch a glimpse of the operating room when I was wheeled into the room. Pam
Reynolds had both of her eyes taped shut and molded ear plugs shutting out
sound. With my eyes and ears open, I was
only vaguely cognoscente of some details, but as I mentioned I wasn't focused room details. Also flat on your back doesn't lend to too much
observation. The business at hand was a heart operation, and the doctors only wanted me to follow instructions. Once I
was position, staring at the ceiling aand overhead lights, there wasn't much one could do and asked to breath deeply I was out like a light.
The
next thing I remember; the nurse standing over my bed, pulling the breathing
tube out my mouth. I woke up in a totally different environment, and
I was told I had been there for hours.
I realized they had cut open my chest and laid it open like a
slab of beef, but I had no memory of that. My entire left leg was swelled up to
where I couldn't bend it, and there were stitched up with major wounds up and down
the right side of my left leg. Obviously, my left leg had really been worked over pretty good, but I had absolutely no memory about it. I also had a massive
bruise around my groin. How in the world did that happen? The
surgery involved my chest--how come my left leg was so beat up? I was told they had harvested the veins from that leg.
Obviously the very rare event of anesthesia awareness didn't happen, but being wheeled, coming into the operating room, wouldn't have offered me the opportunity to check out the placement of the operating assistents and tools. They wouldn't have been in position anyway. Pam Reynolds detailed three teams of assisting technicians and doctors wouldn't have been in position either. She couldn't have observed these things from being flat on her back either, but from her overhead position. Leaving the room would surely had her head swathed in bandages, not much different than my own experience--amounting to totally lost hours of time.
I appreciate the research from Rene Jorgensen and Dr. Sabom
Much of the data came from his pub. about
Anesthesiologist Gerald Woerlee's theory
can be contacted at rene@renejorgensen.com
|
