Search

Neurosurgery is a field with complex ethical issues. In this article, we aim to provide an overview of key and emerging ethical issues in neurosurgery with a focus on issues relevant to practicing neurosurgeons. These issues include those of informed consent, capacity, clinical trials, emerging neurotechnology, innovation, equity and justice, and emerging bioethics areas including community engagement and organizational ethics. We argue that bioethics can help neurosurgeons think about and address these issues, and, in turn, the field of bioethics can benefit from engagement by neurosurgeons. Several ideas for increasing engagement in bioethics are proposed., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is approved under a humanitarian device exemption to manage treatment-resistant obsessive-compulsive disorder (TR-OCD) in adults. It is possible that DBS may be trialed or used clinically off-label in children and adolescents with TR-OCD in the future. DBS is already used to manage treatment-resistant childhood dystonia. Evidence suggests it is a safe and effective intervention for certain types of dystonia. Important questions remain unanswered about the use of DBS in children and adolescents with TR-OCD, including whether mental health clinicians would refer pediatric patients for DBS, and who would be a good candidate for DBS., Objectives: To explore mental health clinicians' views on what clinical and psychosocial factors they would consider when determining which children with OCD would be good DBS candidates., Materials and Methods: In depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with n  = 25 mental health clinicians who treat pediatric patients with OCD. The interviews were transcribed, coded, and analyzed using thematic content analysis. Three questions focused on key, clinical, and psychosocial factors for assessing candidacy were analyzed to explore respondent views on candidacy factors. Our analysis details nine overarching themes expressed by clinicians, namely the patient's previous OCD treatment, OCD severity, motivation to commit to treatment, presence of comorbid conditions, family environment, education on DBS, quality of life, accessibility to treatment, and patient age and maturity., Conclusions: Clinicians generally saw considering DBS treatment in youth as a last resort and only for very specific cases. DBS referral was predominantly viewed as acceptable for children with severe TR-OCD who have undertaken intensive, appropriate treatment without success, whose OCD has significantly reduced their quality of life, and who exhibit strong motivation to continue treatment given the right environment. Appropriate safeguards, eligibility criteria, and procedures should be discussed and identified before DBS for childhood TR-OCD becomes practice.

Recent advances in psychiatric genetics have enabled the use of polygenic risk scores (PRS) to estimate genetic risk for psychiatric disorders. However, the potential use of PRS in child and adolescent psychiatry has raised concerns. This study provides an in-depth examination of attitudes among child and adolescent psychiatrists (CAP) regarding the use of PRS in psychiatry. We conducted semi-structured interviews with U.S.-based CAP (n = 29) who possess expertise in genetics. The majority of CAP indicated that PRS have limited clinical utility in their current form and are not ready for clinical implementation. Most clinicians stated that nothing would motivate them to generate PRS at present; however, some exceptions were noted (e.g., parent/family request). Clinicians spoke to challenges related to ordering, interpreting, and explaining PRS to patients and families. CAP raised concerns regarding the potential for this information to be misinterpreted or misused by patients, families, clinicians, and outside entities such as insurance companies. Finally, some CAP noted that PRS may lead to increased stigmatization of psychiatric disorders, and at the extreme, could be used to support eugenics. As PRS testing increases, it will be critical to examine CAP and other stakeholders' views to ensure responsible implementation of this technology., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Dr. Merner reports no financial relationships with commercial interests. Ms. Trotter reports no financial relationships with commercial interests. Ms. Ginn reports no financial relationships with commercial interests. Mr. Bach reports no financial relationships with commercial interests. Dr. Freedenberg reports no relationships with commercial interests. Dr. Soda receives grant support from NIH. Dr. Merner reports no financial relationships with commercial interests. Dr. Storch was a consultant for Biohaven and Brainsway in the past 12 months. He receives grant support from NIH, International OCD Foundation, and Ream Foundation. He owns stock valued under $5000 in Nview. He receives book royalties from Elsevier, Springer, Oxford, Guilford, American Psychological Association, Lawrence Erlbaum, and Jessica Kingsley. Dr. Pereira receives grant support from NIH. Dr. Lázaro-Muñoz receives grant support from NIH., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: Advances in the development of neurotechnologies have the potential to revolutionize treatment of brain-based conditions. However, a critical concern revolves around the willingness of the public to embrace these technologies, especially considering the tumultuous histories of certain neurosurgical interventions. Therefore, examining public attitudes is paramount to uncovering potential barriers to adoption ensuring ethically sound innovation., Methods: In the present study, we investigate public attitudes towards the use of four neurotechnologies (within-subjects conditions): deep brain stimulation (DBS), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), pills, and MRI-guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS) as potential treatments to a person experiencing either mood, memory, or motor symptoms (between-subjects conditions). US-based participants (N=1052; stratified to be nationally representative based on sex, race, age) were asked about their perceptions of risk, benefit, invasiveness, acceptability, perceived change to the person, and personal interest in using these neurotechnologies for symptom alleviation., Results: Descriptive results indicate variability between technologies that the U.S. public is willing to consider if experiencing severe mood, memory, or motor symptoms. The main effect of neurotechnology revealed DBS was viewed as the most invasive and risky treatment and was perceived to lead to the greatest change to who someone is as a person. DBS was also viewed as least likely to be personally used and least acceptable for use by others. When examining the main effects of symptomatology, we found that all forms of neuromodulation were perceived as significantly more beneficial, acceptable, and likely to be used by participants for motor symptoms, followed by memory symptoms, and lastly mood symptoms. Neuromodulation (averaging across neurotechnologies) was perceived as significantly riskier, more invasive, and leading to a greater change to person for mood versus motor symptoms; however, memory and motor symptoms were perceived similarly with respect to risk, invasiveness, and change to person., Conclusion: These results suggest that the public views neuromodulatory approaches that require surgery (i.e., DBS and MRgFUS) as riskier, more invasive, and less acceptable than those that do not. Further, findings suggest individuals may be more reluctant to alter or treat psychological symptoms with neuromodulation compared to physical symptoms.

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a debilitating psychiatric disorder. Worldwide, its prevalence is ~2% and its etiology is mostly unknown. Identifying biological factors contributing to OCD will elucidate underlying mechanisms and might contribute to improved treatment outcomes. Genomic studies of OCD are beginning to reveal long-sought risk loci, but >95% of the cases currently in analysis are of homogenous European ancestry. If not addressed, this Eurocentric bias will result in OCD genomic findings being more accurate for individuals of European ancestry than other ancestries, thereby contributing to health disparities in potential future applications of genomics. In this study protocol paper, we describe the Latin American Trans-ancestry INitiative for OCD genomics (LATINO, https://www.latinostudy.org). LATINO is a new network of investigators from across Latin America, the United States, and Canada who have begun to collect DNA and clinical data from 5000 richly phenotyped OCD cases of Latin American ancestry in a culturally sensitive and ethical manner. In this project, we will utilize trans-ancestry genomic analyses to accelerate the identification of OCD risk loci, fine-map putative causal variants, and improve the performance of polygenic risk scores in diverse populations. We will also capitalize on rich clinical data to examine the genetics of treatment response, biologically plausible OCD subtypes, and symptom dimensions. Additionally, LATINO will help elucidate the diversity of the clinical presentations of OCD across cultures through various trainings developed and offered in collaboration with Latin American investigators. We believe this study will advance the important goal of global mental health discovery and equity., (© 2023 The Authors. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part B: Neuropsychiatric Genetics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Importance: Polygenic embryo screening (PES) is a novel technology that estimates the likelihood of developing future conditions (eg, diabetes or depression) and traits (eg, height or cognitive ability) in human embryos, with the goal of selecting which embryos to use. Given its commercial availability and concerns raised by researchers, clinicians, bioethicists, and professional organizations, it is essential to inform key stakeholders and relevant policymakers about the public's perspectives on this technology., Objective: To survey US adults to examine general attitudes, interests, and concerns regarding PES use., Design, Setting, and Participants: For this survey study, data were collected from 1 stratified sample and 1 nonprobability sample (samples 1 and 2, respectively) between March and July 2023. The surveys measured approval, interest, and concerns regarding various applications of PES. In the second sample, presentation of a list of potential concerns was randomized (presented at survey onset vs survey end). The survey was designed using Qualtrics and distributed to participants through Prolific, an online sampling firm. Sample 1 was nationally representative with respect to gender, age, and race and ethnicity; sample 2 was recruited without specific demographic criteria. Analyses were conducted between March 2023 and February 2024., Main Outcomes and Measures: Participants reported their approval, interest, and concerns regarding various applications of PES and outcomes screened (eg, traits and conditions). Statistical analysis was conducted using independent samples t tests and repeated-measures analyses of variance., Results: Of the 1435 respondents in sample 1, demographic data were available for 1427 (mean [SD] age, 45.8 [16.0] years; 724 women [50.7%]). Among these 1427 sample 1 respondents, 1027 (72.0%) expressed approval for PES and 1169 (81.9%) expressed some interest in using PES if already undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF). Approval among these respondents for using PES for embryo selection was notably high for physical health conditions (1109 [77.7%]) and psychiatric health conditions (1028 [72.0%]). In contrast, there was minority approval for embryo selection based on PES for behavioral traits (514 [36.0%]) and physical traits (432 [30.3%]). Nevertheless, concerns about PES leading to false expectations and promoting eugenic practices were pronounced, with 787 of 1422 (55.3%) and 780 of 1423 (54.8%) respondents finding them very to extremely concerning, respectively. Sample 2 included 192 respondents (mean [SD] age 37.7 [12.2] years; 110 men [57.3%]). These respondents were presented concerns at survey onset (n = 95) vs survey end (n = 97), which was associated with less approval (28-percentage point decrease) and more uncertainty (24 percentage-point increase) but with only slightly higher disapproval (4 percentage-point increase)., Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that it is critical for health care professionals and medical societies to consider and understand the perspectives of diverse stakeholders (eg, patients undergoing IVF, clinicians, and the general public), given the absence of regulation and the recent commercial availability of PES.

The ongoing debate within neuroethics concerning the degree to which neuromodulation such as deep brain stimulation (DBS) changes the personality, identity, and agency (PIA) of patients has paid relatively little attention to the perspectives of prospective patients. Even less attention has been given to pediatric populations. To understand patients' views about identity changes due to DBS in obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), the authors conducted and analyzed semistructured interviews with adolescent patients with OCD and their parents/caregivers. Patients were asked about projected impacts to PIA generally due to DBS. All patient respondents and half of caregivers reported that DBS would impact patient self-identity in significant ways. For example, many patients expressed how DBS could positively impact identity by allowing them to explore their identities free from OCD. Others voiced concerns that DBS-related resolution of OCD might negatively impact patient agency and authenticity. Half of patients expressed that DBS may positively facilitate social access through relieving symptoms, while half indicated that DBS could increase social stigma. These views give insights into how to approach decision-making and informed consent if DBS for OCD becomes available for adolescents. They also offer insights into adolescent experiences of disability identity and "normalcy" in the context of OCD.

Importance: Establishing a formal definition for neurological device abandonment has the potential to reduce or to prevent the occurrence of this abandonment., Objective: To perform a systematic review of the literature and develop an expert consensus definition for neurological device abandonment., Evidence Review: After a Royal Society Summit on Neural Interfaces (September 13-14, 2023), a systematic English language review using PubMed was undertaken to investigate extant definitions of neurological device abandonment. Articles were reviewed for relevance to neurological device abandonment in the setting of deep brain, vagal nerve, and spinal cord stimulation. This review was followed by the convening of an expert consensus group of physicians, scientists, ethicists, and stakeholders. The group summarized findings, added subject matter experience, and applied relevant ethics concepts to propose a current operational definition of neurological device abandonment. Data collection, study, and consensus development were done between September 13, 2023, and February 1, 2024., Findings: The PubMed search revealed 734 total articles, and after review, 7 articles were found to address neurological device abandonment. The expert consensus group addressed findings as germane to neurological device abandonment and added personal experience and additional relevant peer-reviewed articles, addressed stakeholders' respective responsibilities, and operationally defined abandonment in the context of implantable neurotechnological devices. The group further addressed whether clinical trial failure or shelving of devices would constitute or be associated with abandonment as defined. Referential to these domains and dimensions, the group proposed a standardized definition for abandonment of active implantable neurotechnological devices., Conclusions and Relevance: This study's consensus statement suggests that the definition for neurological device abandonment should entail failure to provide fundamental aspects of patient consent; fulfill reasonable responsibility for medical, technical, or financial support prior to the end of the device's labeled lifetime; and address any or all immediate needs that may result in safety concerns or device ineffectiveness and that the definition of abandonment associated with the failure of a research trial should be contingent on specific circumstances.

The Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) Think Tank XI was held on August 9-11, 2023 in Gainesville, Florida with the theme of "Pushing the Forefront of Neuromodulation". The keynote speaker was Dr. Nico Dosenbach from Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri. He presented his research recently published in Nature inn a collaboration with Dr. Evan Gordon to identify and characterize the somato-cognitive action network (SCAN), which has redefined the motor homunculus and has led to new hypotheses about the integrative networks underpinning therapeutic DBS. The DBS Think Tank was founded in 2012 and provides an open platform where clinicians, engineers, and researchers (from industry and academia) can freely discuss current and emerging DBS technologies, as well as logistical and ethical issues facing the field. The group estimated that globally more than 263,000 DBS devices have been implanted for neurological and neuropsychiatric disorders. This year's meeting was focused on advances in the following areas: cutting-edge translational neuromodulation, cutting-edge physiology, advances in neuromodulation from Europe and Asia, neuroethical dilemmas, artificial intelligence and computational modeling, time scales in DBS for mood disorders, and advances in future neuromodulation devices., Competing Interests: ND has a financial interest in Turing Medical Inc. and may financially benefit if the company is successful in marketing FIRMM motion monitoring software products, may receive royalty income based on FIRMM technology developed at Washington University School of Medicine and Oregon Health and Sciences University and licensed to Turing Medical Inc, and is a co-founder of Turing Medical Inc. These potential conflicts of interest have been reviewed and are managed by Washington University School of Medicine. AH reports lecture fees for Boston Scientific and is a consultant for FxNeuromodulation and Abbott. RG is an employee of Rune Labs. JO'K is CEO and Founder of Machine Medicine Technologies. W-JN received honoraria for consulting from InBrain – Neuroelectronics that is a neurotechnology company and honoraria for talks from Medtronic that is a manufacturer of deep brain stimulation devices unrelated to this manuscript. SL has received speaking honoraria from Medtronic and is a consultant for Iota Biosciences. SS is a consultant for Zimmer Biomet, Neuropace, Koh Young, Boston Scientfic, Sensoria Therapeutics, Varian Medical; co-founder for Motif Neurotech. LM is an employee of Boston Scientific. AF has stock ownership in Inbrain Pharma and has received payments as consultant and/or speaker from Abbvie, Abbott, Boston Scientific, Ceregate, Dompé Farmaceutici, Inbrain Neuroelectronics, Ipsen, Medtronic, Iota, Syneos Health, Merz, Sunovion, Paladin Labs, UCB, Sunovion, and he has received research support from Abbvie, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Praxis, ES and receives royalties from Springer. AH-B and RR are employees of Medtronic Inc. LM is an employee of Boston Scientific. YP is an employee of Abbott. DG is an employee of NeuroPace, owns NeuroPace stock, and has NeuroPace stock options. SM is a founder and shareholder of Newronika SpA. LK is the CEO of Newronika. MP-N has received speaker honoraria/travel costs from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott, Bial, and Abbvie and study reimbursements from Zambon, Licher, Boston Scientific, and Abbott. LC has received research support from National Institutes of Health and the National Network of Depression Centers and serves on the Board of Directors for the International Neuroethics Society (unpaid) as well as on the Advisory Council for the Institute of Neuroethics think and do thank (unpaid). CM is a paid consultant for Boston Scientific Neuromodulation, receives royalties from Hologram Consultants, Neuros Medical, Qr8 Health, and is a shareholder in the following companies: Hologram Consultants, Surgical Information Sciences, BrainDynamics, CereGate, Cardionomic, Enspire DBS. NH is a co-founder of Surgical Information Sciences (SIS), Inc. HM received consulting and IP licensing fees from Abbott Laboratories. AK has stock options in Neurawell and Big Health and is a consultant for Axsome Therapeutics, Big Health, Eisai, Evecxia, Harmony Biosciences, Idorsia, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Millenium Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Neurocrine Biosciences, Neurawell, Pernix, Otsuka Pharmaceuticals, Sage, and Takeda. NP is a consultant for Abbott and Sensoria Therapeutics. PS receives free research devices from Medtronic and fellowship support funding from Medtronic and BSCI and no personal income from anyone. KF reports receiving research support and fellowship support from Medtronic and Boston Scientific and research support from Functional Neuromodulation. MO serves as Medical Advisor the Parkinson's Foundation, and has received research grants from NIH, Parkinson's Foundation, the Michael J. Fox Foundation, the Parkinson Alliance, Smallwood Foundation, the Bachmann-Strauss Foundation, the Tourette Syndrome Association, and the UF Foundation. MO has received royalties for publications with Demos, Manson, Amazon, Smashwords, Books4Patients, Perseus, Robert Rose, Oxford and Cambridge (movement disorders books). MO is an associate editor for New England Journal of Medicine Journal, Watch Neurology, and JAMA Neurology. MO has participated in CME and educational activities (past 12-24 months) on movement disorders sponsored by WebMD/Medscape, RMEI Medical Education, American Academy of Neurology, Movement Disorders Society, Mediflix and by Vanderbilt University. The institution and not MO receives grants from industry. MO has participated as a site PI and/or co-I for several NIH, foundation, and industry sponsored trials over the years but has not received honoraria. Research projects at the University of Florida receive device and drug donations. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision., (Copyright © 2024 Johnson, Dosenbach, Gordon, Welle, Wilkins, Bronte-Stewart, Voon, Morishita, Sakai, Merner, Lázaro-Muñoz, Williamson, Horn, Gilron, O'Keeffe, Gittis, Neumann, Little, Provenza, Sheth, Fasano, Holt-Becker, Raike, Moore, Pathak, Greene, Marceglia, Krinke, Tan, Bergman, Pötter-Nerger, Sun, Cabrera, McIntyre, Harel, Mayberg, Krystal, Pouratian, Starr, Foote, Okun and Wong.)

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI)-based computer perception technologies (e.g., digital phenotyping and affective computing) promise to transform clinical approaches to personalized care in psychiatry and beyond by offering more objective measures of emotional states and behavior, enabling precision treatment, diagnosis, and symptom monitoring. At the same time, passive and continuous nature by which they often collect data from patients in non-clinical settings raises ethical issues related to privacy and self-determination. Little is known about how such concerns may be exacerbated by the integration of neural data, as parallel advances in computer perception, AI, and neurotechnology enable new insights into subjective states. Here, we present findings from a multi-site NCATS-funded study of ethical considerations for translating computer perception into clinical care and contextualize them within the neuroethics and neurorights literatures., Methods: We conducted qualitative interviews with patients ( n = 20), caregivers ( n = 20), clinicians ( n = 12), developers ( n = 12), and clinician developers ( n = 2) regarding their perspective toward using PC in clinical care. Transcripts were analyzed in MAXQDA using Thematic Content Analysis., Results: Stakeholder groups voiced concerns related to (1) perceived invasiveness of passive and continuous data collection in private settings; (2) data protection and security and the potential for negative downstream/future impacts on patients of unintended disclosure; and (3) ethical issues related to patients' limited versus hyper awareness of passive and continuous data collection and monitoring. Clinicians and developers highlighted that these concerns may be exacerbated by the integration of neural data with other computer perception data., Discussion: Our findings suggest that the integration of neurotechnologies with existing computer perception technologies raises novel concerns around dignity-related and other harms (e.g., stigma, discrimination) that stem from data security threats and the growing potential for reidentification of sensitive data. Further, our findings suggest that patients' awareness and preoccupation with feeling monitored via computer sensors ranges from hypo- to hyper-awareness, with either extreme accompanied by ethical concerns (consent vs. anxiety and preoccupation). These results highlight the need for systematic research into how best to implement these technologies into clinical care in ways that reduce disruption, maximize patient benefits, and mitigate long-term risks associated with the passive collection of sensitive emotional, behavioral and neural data., Competing Interests: ES reports receiving research funding to his institution from the Ream Foundation, International OCD Foundation, and NIH. He was formerly a consultant for Brainsway and Biohaven Pharmaceuticals in the past 12°months. He owns stock less than $5000 in NView. He receives book royalties from Elsevier, Wiley, Oxford, American Psychological Association, Guildford, Springer, Routledge, and Jessica Kingsley. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The reviewer JW declared a past co-authorship with the author GL-M to the handling editor., (Copyright © 2024 Hurley, Sonig, Herrington, Storch, Lázaro-Muñoz, Blumenthal-Barby and Kostick-Quenet.)

Psychiatry is rapidly adopting digital phenotyping and artificial intelligence/machine learning tools to study mental illness based on tracking participants' locations, online activity, phone and text message usage, heart rate, sleep, physical activity, and more. Existing ethical frameworks for return of individual research results (IRRs) are inadequate to guide researchers for when, if, and how to return this unprecedented number of potentially sensitive results about each participant's real-world behavior. To address this gap, we convened an interdisciplinary expert working group, supported by a National Institute of Mental Health grant. Building on established guidelines and the emerging norm of returning results in participant-centered research, we present a novel framework specific to the ethical, legal, and social implications of returning IRRs in digital phenotyping research. Our framework offers researchers, clinicians, and Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) urgently needed guidance, and the principles developed here in the context of psychiatry will be readily adaptable to other therapeutic areas.

Patient narratives from two investigational deep brain stimulation trials for traumatic brain injury and obsessive-compulsive disorder reveal that injury and illness rob individuals of personal identity and that neuromodulation can restore it. The early success of these interventions makes a compelling case for continued post-trial access to these technologies. Given the centrality of personal identity to respect for persons, a failure to provide continued access can be understood to represent a metaphorical identity theft. Such a loss recapitulates the pain of an individual's initial injury or illness and becomes especially tragic because it could be prevented by robust policy. A failure to fulfill this normative obligation constitutes a breach of disability law, which would view post-trial access as a means to achieve social reintegration through this neurotechnological accommodation., (© 2024 The Hastings Center.)