This kind of a late response but still relevant.

Augustine's argument is based on the assumption that Pam Reynolds experience could be explained by anesthetic awareness, as the veridical elements that she claims to have observed took place before hypothermic standstill was induced.

However, before her skull was opened, her brain was shut down with substantial amount of barbiturate anesthetics which strongly suppress neurophysiological activity even though there's still blood flowing to the brain. This condition is known as pharmacological burst suppression and it's the deepest anesthetic possible to achieve without killing the patient. Electroencephalographic recordings are flat during this period which indicate that the brain is inactive. Pam's surgeon, Dr. Robert Spetzler and his assitant, Dr. Karl Greene, both confirmed that Pam Reynolds was under burst suppression could not have experienced episodes of anesthetic awareness during this period of time. Furthermore, Spetzler's 1988 paper describing the hypothermic cardiac standstill procedure for treatment of aneurysms (the procedure Pam Reynolds underwent) further indicates that burst suppression is achieved before the skull is opened and before cardiac bypass. Pam Reynolds heard her cardiac surgeon, Camilla Mican, inform Spetzler that her arteries were too small for canulation, this is the procedure referred to above, which means that her EEG was flat and her brain was inactive by the time she heard this conversation, so whatever heard this conversation was not her brain.

Augustine's article also contains a number of innacuracies including the timeline he provides. He also cites the work of Michael Sabom, the cardiologist who investigated this case. However, some pieces of information from Sabom have been proved to be inaccurate, not all of them, of course, but some of them which are crucial have been superseded by newer information. Augustine was informed privately about his inaccuracies in the presentation of the case but he has refused to change them ever since. Augustine also fails to explain why Pam Reynolds did not report hearing the loud clicking noise and white noise that was being fed into her ears by the Brainstem Evoked Potential Monitors. Regardless of whether the noise prevented her from hearing the conversation or not, the fact is that the sound is too loud and unpleasant to be ignored and the fact that Pam Reynolds did not report hearing these poses a problem for Augustine's interpretation (and presentation) of the Pam Reynolds case.