評論
打印
Science and technology
科學技術
Psychology
心理學
How dead is dead?
死亡的程度
Sometimes, those who have died seem more alive than those who have not
有時候，已死的人比沒死的人更像活人
IN GENERAL, people are pretty good at differentiating between the quick and the dead. Modern medicine,
一般來說，我們很容易辨別一個人是處于生的狀態還是死的狀態。
however, has created a third option, the persistent vegetative state.
現代醫學又創造了第三種選擇：植物人狀態。
People in such a state have serious brain damage as a result of an accident or stroke.
在這種狀態下，人的大腦因事故或中風嚴重受損，
This often means they have no hope of regaining consciousness.
幾乎沒有重獲意識的任何希望。
Yet because parts of their brains that run activities such as breathing are intact, their vital functions can be sustained indefinitely.
但是，因為這些人大腦某些部分的活動依然正常，這使他們的生命機能能夠得以維持，盡管持續的時間等難以確定。
When, if ever, to withdraw medical support from such people, and thus let them die, is always a traumatic decision.
如果要終止這類病人的治療，任其死亡，這通常是一件痛苦的事情。
It depends in part, though, on how the fully alive view the mental capacities of the vegetative—an area that has not been investigated much.
這部分取決于完全活著的人怎樣看待植物人的心智能力，人們對這一領域研究的還不多。
To fill that gap Kurt Gray of the University of Maryland, and Annie Knickman and Dan Wegner of Harvard University,
為了填補這一空白，馬里蘭大學的庫爾特·格雷以及哈佛大學的安妮·尼克曼和丹·韋格納做了一個實驗，
conducted an experiment designed to ascertain just how people perceive those in a persistent vegetative state.
旨在弄清人們對于植物人的認識。
What they found astonished them.
實驗結果讓他們大吃一驚。
They first asked 201 people stopped in public in New York and New England to answer questions after reading one of three short stories.
首先，他們在紐約和新英格蘭的公共場所選擇201位受訪者回答問題，回答問題之前先要他們分別閱讀三則短報道中的一篇。
In all three, a man called David was involved in a car accident and suffered serious injuries.
短報道說的是一個叫戴維的男子遭遇車禍，受了重傷。
In one, he recovered fully.
一個報道的結果是，他完全康復；
In another, he died.
另一個是，他不幸死亡；
In the third, his entire brain was destroyed except for one part that kept him breathing.
第三個報道的結果是，他的大腦除了負責呼吸功能的區域外，全部損壞，
Although he was technically alive, he would never again wake up.
雖然從技術上說，他還活著，但他永遠不會醒來。
After reading one of these stories, chosen at random, each participant was asked to rate David’s mental capacities,
隨機選讀一篇后，每個參與者被要求為戴維的心智能力打分，
including whether he could influence the outcome of events, know right from wrong, remember incidents from his life, be aware of his environment, possess a personality and have emotions.
這些能力包括：他是否能夠影響一些事件的結果，他是否能夠分清是非，他是否能夠記住他經歷過的一些事情，他是否知道他所處的環境，他是否具備健全的人格，他是否還擁有常人一樣的情感等等。
Participants used a seven-point scale to make these ratings, where 3 indicated that they strongly agreed that he could do such things,
參與者采用七點評分法，3表示他們非常同意戴維具有上述能力，
0 indicated that they neither agreed nor disagreed, and -3 indicated that they strongly disagreed.
0表示不置可否，-3表示非常不同意戴維具有上述能力。
The results, reported in Cognition, were that the fully recovered David rated an average of 1.77 and the dead David -0.29.
根據《認知》雜志報道，評分的結果是，完全康復的戴維平均得分1.77，死亡的戴維平均得分-0.29。
That score for the dead David was surprising enough, suggesting as it did a considerable amount of mental acuity in the dead.
后者的得分讓人感到意外，這說明人們認為死去的人依然具有相當的心智靈敏性。
What was extraordinary, though, was the result for the vegetative David:
讓人尤為感到不可思議的是，植物人狀態的戴維得分僅為-1.73，
In the view of the average New Yorker or New Englander, the vegetative David was more dead than the version who was dead.
在普通的紐約和新英格蘭民眾看來，植物人的心智能力竟不如一個完全死亡了的人。
The researchers' first hypothesis to explain this weird observation was that participants were seeing less mind in the vegetative than in the dead because they were focusing on the inert body of the individual hooked up to a life-support system.
研究人員認為這種怪異的結果來自于受訪者對于支撐生命那份軀殼的過分關注。
To investigate that, they ran a follow-up experiment which had two different descriptions of the dead David.
為了弄清這個問題，他們又進行了一個補充實驗。在這個實驗中，他們給死亡的戴維兩種不同的描述。
One said he had simply passed away.
一種描述只簡單地說他死了，
The other directed the participant’s attention to the corpse. It read, After being embalmed at the morgue, he was buried in the local cemetery. David now lies in a coffin underground.
另一種描述是在停尸房做過防腐處理后，下葬于本地公墓，戴維現在正躺在地下的棺材里，
In this follow-up study participants were also asked to rate how religious they were.
通過這種毫無歧意的描述把參與者的注意力引向那具尸體。在這個實驗中，還要求參與者列出自己的宗教信仰。
Once again, the vegetative David was seen to have less mind than the David who had passed away.
植物人戴維的得分再一次輸給了死亡的戴維。
This was equally true, regardless of how religious a participant said he was.
不論參與者有無宗教信仰，結果都是一樣的。
However, ratings of the dead David’s mind in the story in which his corpse was embalmed and buried varied with the participant’s religiosity.
但是，對于那個已做了防腐處理而且已經埋葬了的戴維，參與者給他的評分卻因宗教信仰的不同而不同。
Irreligious participants gave the buried corpse about the same mental ratings as the vegetative patient.
無宗教信仰的參與者認為這種情況下的戴維與植物人戴維的心智能力幾乎一樣。
Religious participants, however, continued to ascribe less mind to the irretrievably unconscious David than they did to his buried corpse.
但是，有宗教信仰的參與者仍然認為植物人戴維的心智能力還是不如那位已經長眠地下的戴維。
That those who believe in an afterlife ascribe mental acuity to the dead is hardly surprising.
相信來世的人認為死去的人精神不滅，這沒有什么奇怪的。
That those who do not are inclined to do so unless heavily prompted not to is curious indeed.
不相信有來世的人，如果不是受到什么刺激，而有這樣的想法，倒是奇怪的事。
