Who will watch the watchers? (part 3)

"In 1994," the article continues,

Hayden Ebbern and Sean Mulligan traveled to Seattle to visit the sites where the events surrounding Maria's NDE transpired and had several conversations with Kimberly Clark, who first reported the incident. They also attended a meeting of the support group Clark founded for people who have experienced NDE.

This is, I guess, the same group that Beyerstein disparaged in his Rational Enquirer article as "scientifically illiterate." But why should a support group for medical patients who have undergone near-death experiences be evaluated by this standard? If Beyerstein or his students visited a support group for alcoholics or overeaters, would they object that the group members did not show a sophisticated grasp of quantum mechanics and superstring theory?

The authors go on to summarize the case, pointing out that in her NDE Maria, who was suffering a cardiac arrest at the time and had to be resuscitated by an emergency rescue team, saw "chart paper streaming from the machines monitoring her vital signs ... the emergency room driveway ... [and] details such as that the [E.R.] doors opened inward, that the emergency entrance is reached by a one-way road, and that the road had a curve in it." Although Maria's room overlooked the emergency entrance, Clark told the researchers that "Maria could not have seen the driveway area from her window because it is obscured by a canopy over the entrance. And furthermore, Clark asserted, Maria had been restrained by various lines attaching her to the physiological monitors, making it doubtful she could leave her bed to look out the window."

Before we proceed to the central issue of the shoe, let's see how the authors respond to these points. They do so by speculating freely. In the quotes that follow, the emphases are added by me.

Maria could have been familiar with the hospital equipment and procedures. So, like other parts of the typical NDEs, it is quite possible that [her view of the streaming chart paper] was merely a visual memory incorporated into the hallucinatory world that is often formed by a sensory-deprived and oxygen-starved brain.

Now, there any actual evidence to suggest that Maria, a migrant farm worker, was "familiar with the hospital equipment and procedures"? How many migrant workers who perform stoop labor are familiar with such things? How many people of any non-medical background were familiar with such details back in 1977, when Maria's NDE took place?

Not pausing to consider these obvious objections, the authors proceed to Maria's vision of the emergency entrance.

A bit of reflection upon standard hospital design suggests that Maria reported nothing more than what common sense would dictate. It would strike most people as logical that the doors of a hospital emergency room would open inward as it would be awkward for paramedics to have to negotiate doors that open toward them.

Again, where is the evidence to support the notion that this migrant farm worker had the knowledge and sophistication necessary to reflect "upon standard hospital design"?

Perhaps sensing the weakness of this argument, the authors quickly add,

Maria may have picked up more direct knowledge of the scene than she was aware of, for she had been brought into the hospital through this entrance ... Although it was dark when Maria arrived, the area is well-lighted. Even if she hadn't been fully conscious and able to observe the scene as she was trundled through it (hospital officials would not confirm Maria's level of consciousness upon arrival), it only makes sense to require a one-way traffic in such areas.

Let's remember that Maria was brought in at night, in an ambulance, while suffering a heart attack. She was then hastily unloaded from the ambulance and pushed into the emergency room. She may have been unconscious at the time. She was certainly in acute distress. These are hardly the ideal circumstances under which to reconnoiter the environment.

Again possibly sensing the weakness of the argument, the authors quickly try a different tack.

Giving Clark the benefit of the doubt when she suggests that never once did Maria catch a glimpse of the entrance area beneath her window, it is still not far-fetched to assume that she could have gained some sense of the traffic flow from the sounds of the ambulances coming and going. At night, reflections of vehicle lights can also supply similar clues.

What seems to have been left out of this account is that it is not necessary to give Kimberly Clark "the benefit of the doubt," as the authors are so charitably inclined to do. According to Clark's report, there was a canopy over the entrance area which would have screened this location from Maria's view, even if she had been able to get to the window. The authors mentioned this detail earlier, but seem to have forgotten it already. Or do they think Clark was lying about a canopy? If so, it should have been easy enough for them to find out if the hospital had such a feature in 1977.

So what do we have here? Maria "could have" known about hospital equipment and hospital design, even though her background as a migrant worker makes this rather unlikely. She "could have" observed various details of the emergency room entrance, even though she was brought there in the back of an ambulance and was rushed inside while in acute distress. She "could have" observed some of the same details from her hospital room window, even though she was restricted to her bed and a canopy obscured her view of the lower levels.

Apparently the authors are satisfied that this hodgepodge of explanations has resolved the more mundane aspects of the case. "Most parts of Maria's account are neither unique nor convincing," they conclude. A reader who is skeptical of such ad hoc skeptical rationalizations might not be equally persuaded. In any event, we are still left with the issue of the shoe.

Which we will confront next time.

Comments

[Michael E. Tymn]

Michael,

I know that your words were well chosen and that we are not to infer that something negative happened to Beyerstein in his passing to the other side, i.e., his graduation. Let's all pray that he "sees the light" as soon as possible.

[Michael Prescott]

Absolutely. From the accounts I've read, Dr. Beyerstein was a beloved father, an admired mentor to his students, and a good friend to many people. Just because he may have had a different philosophical perspective from most of us who hang out here does not in any way suggest that he was a "bad person." It is very possible to disagree with someone intellectually and still feel warmth and kindness toward that person as an individual.