A resuscitated patient wakes and tries to describe what they experienced — and is told it was just oxygen deprivation, or met with an awkward silence. They never raise it again. That moment, repeated thousands of times, is not a metaphysical problem. It is a problem of patient care. And it would be remarkably easy to fix.
What Kuhn observed in 2017 — and what still holds
In his interview the neurologist Wilfried Kuhn was asked whether near-death experiences are taught anywhere. His answer was brief:
"Taught — definitely not."
That was 2017 — and it essentially still holds. A 2025 review notes that despite decades of research, little about NDEs has reached medical curricula. What is striking is why: a 2024 survey by Greyson and Pehlivanova of 215 University of Virginia physicians found that very few held dismissive views — the barrier was lack of knowledge, and most expressly wished to learn more. The taboo is giving way to curiosity; only the lecture hall has not noticed yet.
The harm begins with dismissal
Why is this more than an academic gap? Because explaining it away does real harm. The clinical literature is plain: dismissing a near-death experience, explaining it away or prematurely reading it as psychopathology creates distress, undermines coping and destroys the therapeutic relationship. The patient goes silent — and carries one of the most pivotal experiences of their life alone from then on. Conversely, letting people tell their story and find their own meaning turns it into a powerful psychological support. It costs nothing but the willingness not to wave it away.
How common it really is
The objection "but it hardly ever happens" is simply false. NDEs are not a fringe event a doctor never meets:
- 10–20% of cardiac-arrest survivors report a near-death experience.
- A prospective study of 126 ICU patients (stay over 7 days) found an NDE in 15% (Greyson scale). The authors expressly recommend asking patients about any memories on awakening.
Anyone working in emergency, intensive care or cardiology will meet these reports — the only question is whether prepared or not.
Palliative care: the most glaring blind spot
It is most urgent where people are dying. 50–60% of conscious hospice patients have so-called end-of-life dreams and visions (ELDVs) — encounters with absent, usually deceased loved ones. They are overwhelmingly comforting and reduce the fear of death. Crucial for practice: they are not the same as delirium — delirium involves disorientation and disorganised thinking, whereas ELDVs are coherent, and patients can clearly tell the two apart.
This is exactly where malpractice lies within reach: mistake a comforting deathbed vision for delirium and you sedate it away — taking from the dying the very thing that brings them peace. The reviews therefore demand unambiguously that staff recognise and validate such experiences rather than over-medicate them. That is palliative craft, not esotericism. The related life review belongs to the same field.
The distressing cases need competence
Most NDEs are positive — but a minority (around 5% in several studies) is experienced as deeply distressing: fear, emptiness, a sense of judgment. These people most urgently need competent support — and are most vulnerable to misinterpretation. Without any training a distressing NDE easily lands in the wrong box ("psychosis") and thus in the wrong treatment. That is the most practically compelling reason for a minimum of education: not to change worldviews, but to avoid mistreatment.
The trick: you need not believe anything
And here is the point that makes this concern unassailable for every camp: you do not have to regard near-death experiences as paranormal to demand that doctors handle them competently. Whether you see them as a glimpse behind the curtain or as a pure brain phenomenon — either way they are a real, common patient experience, and handling them wrongly does harm. The question of cause, treated in Consciousness — a conjecture, can remain entirely open. The clinical task stands without it.
And the bar is even lower than it sounds: no one is asking every doctor to become an NDE researcher. It would suffice to recognise such cases, not shut them down, and refer them — to psychologists experienced in NDE integration, to chaplaincy, to the support networks (such as IANDS). That is exactly the triage competence doctors already hold for every other specialty: don't treat everything yourself, but recognise the right thing and refer. For NDEs there is simply, as yet, no single line in the curriculum to trigger it.
Context
What it would take is modest: a few hours in training, a screening line at the waking interview ("Did you perceive anything while you were unconscious?"), a little communication training, a referral address. No expensive technology, no metaphysical commitment. Measured against the scale — millions affected, a clearly documented harm of dismissal — this is the least controversial and most feasible reform in the whole field. That it fails to happen fits the pattern this series keeps describing (see Majority versus experts): the obstacle is not the matter itself, but the institutional reluctance even to name it. The lecture hall lags behind the clinic — and in the end the patients pay the difference.
Sources
- Kuhn, W. (2017): Thanatos TV interview — "Taught — definitely not." (Transcript on file.)
- Greyson, B. & Pehlivanova, M. (2024): survey of 215 University of Virginia physicians — the main barrier is knowledge, not rejection.
- Prospective study of NDEs in long-ventilated ICU patients (n = 126; 15% NDE, Greyson scale ≥ 7) — recommending that patients be asked about memories on awakening.
- Systematic review of end-of-life dreams and visions (ELDVs) — prevalence 50–60% in conscious hospice patients; predominantly comforting; clearly distinct from delirium; recommendation: recognise and validate, do not over-medicate.
- GeriPal / clinical guidance literature — dismissing and pathologising NDEs causes distress and undermines trust.