Part of the study is looking into if the brain and mind are separate. I looked up some of the conditions of the study. There was a previous study that lead to this extended study. Study is done by a group of medical doctors. All patients had the following to qualify: no pulse(verified by machine/hospital study), no breathing, no brain function(verified by pupil reflex), then revived.
That's a bad criteria. Pupil reflex may not equate to brain function. I'd hate to see someone use this as a reason to run this study again.
Understand, I'm not criticising anything you've said. I'm criticising the study based on the complete details that you've graciously posted.
While the AMA standards may be proper in normal use, my concern is limited to the gap in how the researchers plan on performing this specific research. There is a gap that begs to be tested again in the future.
They should take this extra research protocol into account as part of the procedure for the operation as long as they do not add to the potential harm of the patient. If they can't do this, that is a necessary limitation of the study.
My fear is that after this study, and the lack of verified OBEs or (worse) oxygen deprived brains causing what seem to be OBEs (but are not) yet are interesting enough to hint at potential direction for research, will cause this gap to be identified and more research money will be sucked up into a nearly identical survey that addresses this issue. These new surveys will likely end also with a lack of verified OBEs -- wasting money the second time around.
Research budgets are not unlimited and it would be good to put that money toward a project that could tell us something important that we are currently ignorant of. If the money gets spent on projects like this, let's make it definitive the first time so there are no second times unless they do actually find something interesting (OBEs or something interesting and unexpected).
The purpose of the study appears to be two-fold: One, see if brain and mind functions are different. Two, look for a way to slow down body functions, thus controlling damage to the body. Kind of like putting someone into a coma.
Since there is control over the situation (as much as there can be), there should be time to slap a few sensors. If they don't spend the marginal money this time around, more money will be wasted later. The per-patient cost over the cost of the study should be minor when compared to running the test a second (or third) time.