It's nice that the story of Rom Houben has recently made the news. I carried it as one of my own "Positivity" posts earlier this week.
A Google News Search on "Rom Houben Laureys" (not typed in quotes; Laureys is the last name of Houben's principal doctor) at about 11:30 p.m. ET came back with 1,528 results relating to the word of his amazing recovery and ability to communicate after 23 years of being "comatose."
That same search also comes back with 197 results questioning the legitimacy of his recovery. That number appears likely to grow, as the core article leading those results was only 8 hours old when this post was prepared.
From Brussels, the Associated Press's Raf Cassert gave voice to the doubters, while avoiding one of the real reasons why they're engaged in their doubting:
Coma recovery case attracts doubters
Rom Houben's mother remembers her son's amazement when he finally started communicating again after spending 23 years locked in a paralyzed body that was misdiagnosed as vegetative.
"Early on, he was surprised that the words came out of his finger," Fina Nicolaes said. "Now, he is busy writing a book."
However, his communication, with the help of a speech therapist holding his hand punching a touch screen, is stirring controversy only days after the story of his comeback as a fully conscious man entombed in an immobile body captured the world's imagination.
It has scholars questioning the technique of facilitated communication, bloggers denouncing it as a cruel farce, and millions asking as they watch the video of Houben's hand being held as it quickly types into the screen — who is really doing the punching here?
Dr. Steven Laureys understands the questions and said he might ask the same if he did not know the patient. And he said there is only one way to address the doubters — science.
"For me, there are two questions: Is he conscious? Can he communicate? That is 'yes' twice," he said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press.
.... when news of Houben's recovery and the video hit the world this week, some people immediately began raising doubts. Bioethics professor Arthur Caplan of the University of Pennsylvania was among the first — calling the practice of facilitated communication "Ouija board stuff."
The British Psychological Society, through clinical neurologist Dr. Graham Powell echoed that view, arguing there is nothing in scientific literature to support using facilitated communication as it's been used with Houben.
Caffert left out at least two important things:
- That Laureys believes that roughly 4 in 10 patients believed to be in a persistent vegetative state really aren't. This brings echoes of 2005's Terri Schiavo situation, where doctors and the courts persisted in giving Terri's husband Michael the permission to starve and dehydrate her to death based on his word alone that it's what Terri would have wanted. Laureys's position makes him a target.
- That Penn professor Caplan is not an objective observer. In 2005, Caplan told CNN that he, in CNN's words, "supports the Texas law giving the hospital the right to make life or death decisions eveen if the family disagrees. 'There are occasions when family members just don't get it right,' he said. 'No parent should have the right to cause suffering to a kid in a futile situation.'"
Cassert, as seen above, added another person who agreed with Caplan. He didn't find any scientist who agreed with Laureys or who would comment positively on Houben's progress. It's hard to believe that finding one would have required a lot of effort.
In other words, Cassert's coverage is not only not balanced, it is badly out of balance.
It's quite interesting that the press is so willing to give the doubters their due in this instance, while those who doubt something that has, with the emergence of Climategate, apparently been subjected to far more manipulation than anything Laureys might have done to steer his patient in any given direction, get the back of the hand treatment from the media.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters





















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I have it in my living trust
Sat, 11/28/2009 - 03:09 ET by shawn228......that I would not want to live if I was ever in that state. That is just me and I do not have the right to make that decision for anyone else but my goodness how terrible that must have felt. To be alive and not be able to express how much pain he was in, or if he had an itch or if he was thirsty or hungry and have to live like that for 2 decades is heartbreaking.
From what I understand, this is an extraordinary case and having some doubters is not out of the ordinary.
God gave Them Over
Sat, 11/28/2009 - 06:54 ET by GeneralAlIn the first chapter of the Book of Romans, it says [I paraphrase here!], "God gave them over to a reprobate mind!" Everything coming from the world establishment today is totally opposite from the moral teachings of the Bible. Thats why there is no surprise to be had regarding the willingness to embrace the teachings of the Koran and defend it like gold! These loons are concerned about saving the spotted owl at the expense of human beings. They go into hysterics over the way chickens are killed. They believe that capital punishment is murder but its okay to suck the brains out of an unborn infant because "Its part of the mother and she has a right to choose!" Every time I read the vomit from the idiots I get violently sick! Most of us are on the brink of a meltdown! Keep it up you idiots! You're going to get yours one of these days! Come on 2010 ELECTIONS!
Nature abhors a vacuum
Sat, 11/28/2009 - 09:36 ET by moderncommentaries83When you don't believe in the Gospel, you do not believe in "nothing", you'll fall for anything.
This is why Islam is on the rise, and why lots of people fall hook, line and sinker for all those new-agey, Oprah-inspired self-help methods and alternative "spiritualities."
Look at each of the new-age spiritualities that've come around and each of them will have inklings, traces, and snippets that resemble Christianity quite a bit.
Yet people do not want to embrace Christ and follow His teachings. They want Christ to follow them...hence the mess we're in today.
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
Well, the reaction from the
Sat, 11/28/2009 - 09:34 ET by moderncommentaries83Well, the reaction from the culture of death is totally explicable:
They want to kill as many people as possible; cull the herd so as to save the world for themselves and their loved ones. It's the "Just enough of us, way too many of you" mentality.
When someone like Rom Houben comes around, it casts doubt on the culture of death's assertion that pulling the plug (or actively euthanizing) someone is the "humane" thing to do. It gives people hope that pulling the plug on their loved one may not be the thing to do...they may still be alive.
The culture of death does not like to lose control.
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
The shaky ground of FC.
Sat, 11/28/2009 - 10:10 ET by Jcon96First off, am I to understand that anyone who skeptical of this is automatically a member of this "Culture of Death?" It has nothing to do with the fact that my skepticism is based on the studies on the validity of facilitated communication?
It has been to shown to be easily abused by the facilitator, and has been struck down as evidence in the courts. The fact that it seems akin to the ideomotor effect and has been well debunked should raise the alarm with some, without automatically placing them in your "culture of death."
I would suggest a bit of research into this hoax that plays on the emotions of distraught families before dismissing it out of hand as simply the words of those who want to kill anyone not fully functional. The opinions of a few doctors, with no apparent independent testing, does not prove anything.
What are you talking about?
Sat, 11/28/2009 - 11:30 ET by CobraManWhat "hoax" are you talking about? Do you realize that "facilitated communications" covers people like Stephen Hawkins who is now almost completely paralyzed, unable to move his fingers and can no longer push a mouse button and, therefor, must communicate solely through the use of one of his former students who "interprets" his eye movements and eyelid blinks in order to facilitate communications?
Would you classify Stephen Hawking as a vegetable, the new work he's doing this this process of facilitated communications as a hoax, and the scientific community who supports him as "abused?" No? I didn't think so!
It seems that you're unwilling to entertain the idea that we don't know enough about human consciousness and neural abilities in order to actually decide when someone is in a "persistent vegetable state" or not. We're not Gods, nor are we mind readers, so we can not know just what is going on in this man's, or any other comatose person's, mind. Let's give them what we give accused killers, the benefit of doubt before deciding their fate. Doesn't that just seem reasonable to you?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Did you bother to click on
Sat, 11/28/2009 - 12:04 ET by Jcon96Did you bother to click on any of the links? If you had, you would not bother making this comparison.
If Stephen Hawking has progressed to this point, (He has not by the way, he is using a computer to communicate, not a student, so your entire statement concerning his method, caretakers and support, is false.) then I would say that unless a particular code was worked out before a person got to this state, then the thoughts may not be theirs. The argument of someone who has slowly got to this state, as opposed to someone suddely put into it, is false anyway. The comparison of Hawking to Houben is apples to oranges. A simple test will put to rest if Houben is doing the communicating.
By the way, posing a question, then answering for another, is a ridiculous way to prove a point. You are arguing with yourself at that level.
Yes, I bothered to click on it
Sat, 11/28/2009 - 12:17 ET by CobraManYes, I bothered to "click on it" and your links prove nothing. One is about SEXUAL ABUSE, something not at issue here, and another leads to even more links and most of them are useless.
As for you claim that Stephen uses a computer, that was true two years ago but is no longer true. You see, his disease has progress to the point that, for the last two years, he's been unable to move his hand, or even his fingers, any more and his latest work has required the use of an assistant in order to communicate by the use of eye movements and blinks.. I just watched a Science Channel program about this just last week. By YOUR definition, he's a total vegetable and all of his work over the last two years is suspect as it is subject to "abuse."
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Based on your quick
Sat, 11/28/2009 - 12:36 ET by Jcon96Based on your quick response, you really did not read them. The links show how FC can be misused. The thoughts of the facilitator are being typed, not the (presumed) thoughts of the patient. I think you should also investigate the ideomotor effect, sometimes called the ouija effect.
As for the Hawking article, that just proves you did not read the info. As of Jan. 2009, he was using a computer, not a person. So that blows the whole "that was true two years ago but is no longer true" argument right out of the water. He does not need to move his hands, or fingers. Just look and blink. The Science channel program in question may be wrong, or working from old info. I believe he is currently working in concert with a company on a direct interface system.
By the way, I offered no definition on what constitutes a vegitative state, so I would appreciate you again not speaking for me. As to Dr. Hawkings work, I would assume peer review would take care of that. The entire statement I made was that had he not worked out a code, and if he was using a human facilitator, then his work would be suspect. Please read entire articles and statements before commenting. It save time.
I've used facilitated
Sat, 11/28/2009 - 12:41 ET by GrannyGrump42I've used facilitated communication with two clients. They correctly answered questions I didn't know the answers to. So either THEY were really communicating, or I was using ESP.
Granted, there was nothing very sophisticated being communicated. They were mentally retarded young men being given the chance to choose activities or express preferences. But what happened with those guys was real. It was a weird experience to be doing it with them.
Jcon96
Sat, 11/28/2009 - 12:29 ET by shawn228Great post. I have seen lots of bias from the msm, but I mean I don't know how anyone can blame some folks to be skeptical about this one. This is a man that is in a permanent vegetative state, that communicates through one finger.
Your also right the the Stephen Hawking comparisian, It kind of reminds of one time, I said I was not really offended during the premier of "V" in a scene where there was rumbling and a Crucifix fell on the floor, then this one poster/stalker I have said, then you would not be offended if someone peed on the Koran?
Apples to Oranges comparisians, thank you for pointing it out.
By the way
Sat, 11/28/2009 - 12:29 ET by CobraMan"A simple test will put to rest if Houben is doing the communicating."
By the way, I find it extremely ironic that you state that a test would answer the question whether the man was communicative or not yet labeled this as a "hoax" before such a test is even conducted, let alone having the results of such a test published. Talk about being ridiculous!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
I said FC was a hoax. But
Sat, 11/28/2009 - 12:44 ET by Jcon96I said FC was a hoax. But being a rational person, I would give this situation the benefit of the doubt and test it, considering the feeling in play here. A simple blindfold and 5 minutes effort would settle this.I do not need to continuously reprove gravity to make it true, but sometimes people will not believe otherwise.
I was not being ridiculous. Merely suggesting a way the families concerns may be put to rest, and move on with the situation. Nothing unusual, and easily done with a minimum of time spent.
You can't use a blindfold
Sat, 11/28/2009 - 19:17 ET by GrannyGrump42You can't use a blindfold when you're the facilitator in FC. But you *can* have a family member prepare questions that the facilitator and the tester don't know the answers to, but the person does. (Say, "What was the name of the cat that used to hide under the refrigerator?" or "Who had the bedroom with the door to the attic?") The FC person can't either consciously or unconsciously answer the questions correctly.
Life Imitating Art
Sat, 11/28/2009 - 12:29 ET by Anneke9I think Houben's family has been watching Law & Order. There was an episode several years back re: facilitated communications. The child who could supposedly could communicate with someone holding his hand as he pecked out letters on a keyboard was not communicating on his own. It was the ever-hopeful parents putting words in his mouth, so to speak. As soon as I saw facilitated communications being used on Houben, I was suspicious.
Camouflage conservative in Baghdad-by-the-Bay
I've actually used
Sat, 11/28/2009 - 12:38 ET by GrannyGrump42I've actually used facilitated communication with clients of mine when I worked in mental retardation. I don't think I was unconsciously answering questions on my clients' behalf because they correctly answered questions I didn't know they knew the answers to, and they gave answers I didn't expect. For example, I was surprised that one young man spelled a worker's name right when I asked who she was. When I expressed surprise, she told me that the client used to have a communication book that had photos of all the staff and their names underneath.
I realize that there IS a big potential for abuse, and for the facilitators to fool themselves into thinking that they're just facilitating when they're actually doing the communication themselves, but it can be tested by doing double-blind tests in which a tester who doesn't know the correct answers asks questions, the facilitator helps the person answer, then the answers are checked by somebody who knows the correct answers.
A few questions like "What was Aunt Myrtle's dog's name?" or "How did your cousin Paul break his leg?" would clear up any confusion.
I think in part people don't want to believe that locked-in syndrome is misdiagnosed as PVS or coma because they want to be able to dispose of those people with a clear conscience. If they might really be alive and with wishes they could express, the conscience is no longer clear.
The skeptics here should 'click on the links"
Sat, 11/28/2009 - 12:39 ET by CobraManThe sceptics here should followe their own advice and 'clink on the links" themselves. If the had they would have seen this:
"More searching finally got her in touch with Laureys, who put Houben through a PET scan that indicated he was conscious. The family and doctors then began trying to establish communication.
A breakthrough came when he was able to indicate yes or no by slightly moving his foot to push a computer device placed there by Laureys’ team.
Then came the spelling of words using his finger and a touch-screen attached to his wheelchair."
So,. instead of someone "guiding his fingers" as some have claimed, he's actually doing what Stephen Hawkins was once able to do, use a computer HIMSELF in order to commuicate!
Care to eplain how that is a "hoax,": anyone?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Then if that is true, then
Sat, 11/28/2009 - 12:49 ET by Jcon96Then if that is true, then why the need of an FC? You are answering your own question! If he can use a foot device, than no human facilitator need be used. If they are using both, well the results may be at odds.
And again, please read the article about Dr. Hawking. He is STILL using a computer. Your continued statements to the contrary are beginning to look very foolish.
I'm not the one who's claiming that
Sat, 11/28/2009 - 12:56 ET by CobraManI'm not the one who's making that claim, you are!
I simply pointed out that Facilitated Communication is not a hoax, although it can be used to perpetrate a hoax, as can anything else humans make or do..
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
The article is wrong!
Sat, 11/28/2009 - 12:57 ET by CobraManThe article is wrong! He's NOT using a computer anymore, as he can no longer move his extremities! I watch him communicate through an aid. The aid remarked how "painfully long" this process is. Or are you telling me that a recent science show about this was a lie?
I don't know how old that article is, but they, like you, need to update your information.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Cobraman
Sat, 11/28/2009 - 13:02 ET by shawn228Do you have a link for your claim, or is everyone else just to go on something you watched?
I watched in on the Science Channel
Sat, 11/28/2009 - 13:10 ET by CobraManIt was a recent show (I believe it was the Science Channel, but t could have been the History Channel) that was dedicated to Hawkings and talked about his work, past and present. He's currently working, with the assistance of a former student, on his latest work involving Unified Field Theory, which he wants to finish before he dies. I don''t have a direct link, so you'll have to look for one yourself.
Of course, this is just a red herring as the man in question, Rom Houben is doing using a computer to communicate. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Hawkins is still using a computer, as he did in the past, in order to communicate. What does that say about the supposed 'hoax" of Rom Houben's consciousness? It says that the "hoax" is nothing of the kind as he's doing what Stephen is doing an no one is questing Hawkings state of consciousness, are they?.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
If Houben is using a
Sat, 11/28/2009 - 13:16 ET by Jcon96If Houben is using a computer, why the FC then? Sounds a bit suspicious to me. If he can communicate directly, then no person need stand between him and the person being spoken to. Unless they "like" what the FC is saying, so they rely on that person, not the compter interface. Either way, the use of 2 systems achieving the same end leaves the results open for error.
I diodn't make that claim
Sat, 11/28/2009 - 13:25 ET by CobraManWhy do you keep insisting that there's a FC claim? The Breibrat article makes no such claim.The AP is the one making that claim, I certainty never made that claim. You seem to believe the AP over the Doctors who are treating this man even though the AP article has OVERLOOKED the fact that the man first used his foot and that the PET scans shows that he's conscious. Why do you, and the AP, ignoring this?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
I too fail to see what
Sat, 11/28/2009 - 13:18 ET by Jack BauerI too fail to see what Stephen Hawking's situation has to do with Rom. Also -- you've always seemed a reasonable guy, and if you say you saw something on a documentary, then why should I not believe you?
I'm getting sick to death of people posting "links" to so-called articles which supposedly "support" their argument. Talk about intellectually lazy.
This is quite differnt from posting links to stuff meant to amuse and inform. But if you can't make your own arguments, then why bother?
He does not need to move
Sat, 11/28/2009 - 13:12 ET by Jcon96He does not need to move his extremities. It works by eyeblinks. And did you happen to look at the website credentials? It is official site for Professor Hawking. So the article on his site is wrong, all the news articles concerning his comm. system is wrong, the company that developed and maintains the system is wrong, videos of him using it is wrong, you are right. As to the age of the article, again, try reading the entire page. As of Jan. 2009, he was using this system. You claim 2 years. I will side with the site, thanks.
Perhaps a link to the video, or even a clip of the Science Channel story? Something to go on other than your word? I do not doubt your honesty, but perhaps I am from Missouri.
Honestly, I am not going to bother discussing this anymore with someone who will not take the time to research an issue. Save your time, and go argue with a mirror. You will achieve the same results. All you apparently want is someone to tell you you are right, and you will use all the unneeded capitilization and excessive punctuation required. Besides, this is a sidetrack from the discussion at hand. Professor Hawking can speak for himself withno human intervention. FC is, in my an many others opinion, open to excessive human interpretation.
I concede you're point
Sat, 11/28/2009 - 13:17 ET by CobraManOk, I concede the point. Hawkings is using a computer to communicate. He's conscious , just like Rom Houben. So, does this mean you'll retract your "hoax" claim as Rom Houben is doing the same thing Hawkings is doing, using computer to communicate? Or will you continue to use my Hawkings example as a red herring in order to avoid admitting to you're false claims?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Test confirmed!
Sat, 11/28/2009 - 13:34 ET by CobraMan"The novel method of communication has not convinced all medical experts,
however. “It’s Ouija board stuff. It’s been discredited time and again when
people look at it. It’s usually the person who is doing the pointing who is
doing the messages,” Arthur Caplan, Professor of Bioethics at the University
of Pennsylvania, said after watching a video of the
The spectacle is so incredible that even Steven Laureys, the neurologist who
discovered Mr Houben’s potential, had doubts about its authenticity. He
decided to put it to the test.
“I showed him objects when I was alone with him in the room and then, later,
with his aide, he was able to give the right answers,” Professor Laureys
said. “It is true.”
Link (for those who need it)
Humm... It seems that he WAS tested, and he passed those tests! So much for the "hoax' theory!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
So the Dr. tests his own
Sat, 11/28/2009 - 14:48 ET by Jcon96So the Dr. tests his own theory, and if the article is to be believed, with no one else in the room. He then brings in an aide and all the answers are correct. I guess that is suppose to prove something? No double blind testing? No (by the wording of the article) impartial observers? No controls? The test, by any scientific standards, is biased.
The Dr. was looking for a result, control the test to get it, and suprise, got the answer he was looking for. Having been in on a few tests of fantastic claims, I feel I can judge this one as hopelessly corrupted. Sorry, but sarcasm and your continued capitalization lends no weight to this claim.
JCon, So,
Sat, 11/28/2009 - 17:46 ET by JoeBobJCon,
So, anyone who claims to have performed, or been present at, tests of FC integrity is now also a hoaxer, as well as the process itself? I notice you specifically did not respond to GrannieGrump's posts about her presence and participation at FC tests. Is she a hoaxer also? You seem to allow for no middle ground, while those who have supported the idea of FC viability have readily admitted the potential for fraud.
If we compare the potential for fraud in the FC case to, say, the AGW fraud currently being exposed, I'd say the potential stakes are just as high, since the stakes are nothing less than the social control of life and death (as opposed to just money and power in the AGW case). With the stakes so high, integrity should be preserved and malfeasance punished. But your hard-line stance on the science behind FC smells more than a little like "there's a consensus" and "the debate is over". You might want to check your own biases at the science door.
JoeBob
Without recognizing the ordinances of Heaven, it is impossible to be a superior man. - Confucious
Being present at a test
Sat, 11/28/2009 - 19:08 ET by Jcon96Being present at a test does not validate it. As for GrannieGrump, well, at the risk of insulting her, yes. It has to be done in a controlled setting, with impartial observers, in a double blind system. Anything else is hearsay and suspect. Show me that has been done, and I will concede. There is no middle ground. It either works or it does not.
As for your pitiful attempt to make me out as a global warming supporter, well, you could not be more wrong. As I said to the other person going after me for doubting this, do not put words in my mouth. I have never said their was a consensus, nor claimed any debate was over. I am a skeptic. I want any topic tested properly, then tested again. My current opinion is that AGW is a fraud, used for the purposes of income generation. Happy?
You seem willing to accept it on a doctors, and a poster you know nothing of, simple say so. Well, the doctor said it was true, and a total stranger with no credentials I am aware of, said they did it, so it it okay! This falls in the same category as a Ouija board, dowsing and the like. Ideomotor effect. Easily observed at home.
As a mentor of mine has said "Do not have so open a mind your brains fall out." I do not have a bias to check, merely a desire to see proper science recognized, and hokum debunked.
We didn't do experiments. I
Sat, 11/28/2009 - 19:21 ET by GrannyGrump42We didn't do experiments. I got sent to an FC training to see if we could use it to communicate with nonverbal clients. But frankly, we found it more cumbersome on the whole than simply using nonverbal communication. They were practiced at communicating that way and we were used to it so we fell back onto it. Why drag out a keyboard and have somebody type what they want for dinner when they can just open the fridge and point?
Thank you for clarifying
Sat, 11/28/2009 - 20:57 ET by Jcon96Thank you for clarifying that.
It's fair enough to be a
Sun, 11/29/2009 - 01:03 ET by JoeBobIt's fair enough to be a skeptic, and it's nice to see conclusive proof to validate something that could be faked, but the potential for fraud does not equal fraud. In any case, the integrity of witnesses who accurately describe phenomena that appears credible should not be impugned without a damn good reason.
Didn't say you believed in AGW, and it doesn't matter if you do. I described your mindset as being of the same sort that closes off all contradictory evidence (and even anecdotal evidence is a type of evidence). While it is not necessary for you to believe that the doctor's (or Granny's) story is "okay", your dismissal of it, nay, your classification of it as a hoax, is evidence of your bias. We wouldn't like to see your brains fall out, but you could perhaps loosen up the lid a little bit.
Without recognizing the ordinances of Heaven, it is impossible to be a superior man. - Confucious
If he was gone for 23 years,
Sat, 11/28/2009 - 16:10 ET by Mitchell BlattIf he was gone for 23 years, it seems kind of strange for him to regain living abilities just now. It seems as if the family would learn to live without him, after spending millions of dollars for him to come back to life with very small chances of success.
Death happens, and sometimes God plans for death to happen.
"If he was gone for 23
Sat, 11/28/2009 - 17:53 ET by JoeBob"If he was gone for 23 years..."
Where did he go, Mitchell?
Are you actually stating that they've had a corpse on their hands for 23 years, and now they're pushing buttons with a dead man's finger? That seems just a little bit morbid to me.
Death happens, yes, but maybe just sometimes God's plans involve something a little more complex than the simple starting and ending of a man's life. At least it did once.
Without recognizing the ordinances of Heaven, it is impossible to be a superior man. - Confucious