(no subject)

[oakenguy]

If you're like me, you've spent a great deal of time thinking about ways to improve the Glasgow Coma Scale.

Admit it; I mean, we've all done it. We've grown up using a 1 to 10 scale, so something that goes from 3 (no brain activity) to 15 (fully cognitive) just feels wrongedy-wrongedy-wrong. Sure, "logically" the score (eye response + verbal response + motor response) might make sense, but where is the room for logic in neuroscience?!?

Therefore, I'd like to propose The Glasgow-Cambridgeport Unabridged Coma Scale, which shall run from 1 to 15. 3 through 15 shall be scored normally. 2 will indicate patients with no brain inside their skull; a 1 will serve to indicate a patient with no head.

Comments

[flynngrrl.livejournal.com]

Well said. Perhaps we should expand this definition to the Rancho scale as well, although I think they'd have to add negative numbers.

[daemionfox.livejournal.com]

What if they've managed to have their head shoved up their ass? Would that qualify for a 1?

[oakenguy.livejournal.com]

If it's self-inflicted, we might have our first Zero!

[daemionfox.livejournal.com]

Oh, it's most certainly self inflicted. You should meet some of the managers here.

[rantarn.livejournal.com]

I'm thinking some sort of metric-ized scale here since everything else coming out of Europe has to have that. Then you can have centicognitives, millicognitives, nanocognitives. I mean, come on, the world would be a better place that way.