Search

This chapter explores the complex neuroethical aspects of neurosurgery and neuromodulation in the context of Canadian healthcare and innovation, as seen through the lens of the Pan Canadian Neurotechnology Ethics Consortium (PCNEC). Highlighted are key areas of ethical focus, each with its own unique challenges: technical advances, readiness and risk, vulnerable populations, medico-legal issues, training, and research. Through an exploration of Canadian neurotechnological practice from these various clusters, we provide a critical review of progress, describe opportunities to address areas of debate, and seek to foster ethical innovation. Underpinning this comprehensive review are the fundamental principles of solution-oriented, practical neuroethics, with beneficence and justice at the core. In our view, it is a moral imperative that neurotechnological advancements include a delineation of ethical priorities for future guidelines, oversight, and interactions., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

ObjectiveNovel and minimally invasive neurotechnologies offer the potential to reduce the burden of epilepsy while avoiding the risks of conventional resective surgery. Few neurotechnologies have been tested in randomized controlled trials with pediatric populations, leaving clinicians to face decisions about whether to recommend these treatments with insufficient evidence about the relevant risks and benefits. This study specifically explores the preferences of clinicians for treating pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) with novel neurotechnologies.MethodsA discrete-choice experiment (DCE) was designed to elicit the preferences of clinicians with experience in treating children with DRE using novel neurotechnological interventions. The preferences for six key attributes used when making treatment decisions (chances of clinically significant improvement in seizures, major and minor risks from intervention, availability of evidence, financial burden for the family, and access to the intervention) were estimated using a conditional logit model. The estimates from this model were then used to predict the adoption of existing novel neurotechnological interventions.ResultsSixty-eight clinicians completed the survey: 33 neurosurgeons, 28 neurologists, and 7 other clinicians. Most clinicians were working in the United States (74%), and the remainder (26%) in Canada. All attributes, apart from the nearest location with access to the intervention, influenced preferences significantly. The chance of clinically significant improvement in seizures was the most positive influence on clinician preferences, but low-quality evidence and a higher risk of major complications could offset these preferences. Of the existing neurotechnological interventions, vagus nerve stimulation was predicted to have the highest likelihood of adoption; deep brain stimulation had the lowest likelihood of adoption.SignificanceThe preferences of clinicians are drive primarily by the likelihood of achieving seizure freedom for their patients, but preferences for an intervention are largely eradicated if only low quality of evidence supporting the intervention is available. Until better evidence supporting the use of potentially effective, novel neurotechnologies becomes available, clinicians are likely to prefer more established treatments.

This qualitative study investigated factors that guide caregiver decision making and ethical trade-offs for advanced neurotechnologies used to treat children with drug-resistant epilepsy. Caregivers with affected children were recruited to semi-structured focus groups or interviews at one of 4 major epilepsy centers in Eastern and Western Canada and the USA (n = 22). Discussions were transcribed and qualitative analytic methods applied to examine values and priorities (eg, risks, benefits, adherence, invasiveness, reversibility) of caregivers pertaining to novel technologies to treat drug-resistant epilepsy. Discussions revealed 3 major thematic branches for decision making: (1) features of the intervention-risks and benefits, with an emphasis on an aversion to perceived invasiveness; (2) decision drivers-trust in the clinical team, treatment costs; and (3) quality of available information about neurotechnological options. Overall, caregivers' definition of treatment success is more expansive than seizure freedom. The full involvement of their values and priorities must be considered in the decision-making process.

This qualitative study investigated factors that guide physicians' choices for minimally invasive and neuromodulatory interventions as alternatives to conventional surgery or medical management for pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy. North American physicians were recruited to one of 4 focus groups at national conferences. Discussions were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. A pragmatic neuroethics framework was applied to interpret results. Discussions revealed 2 major thematic branches: (1) clinical decision making and (2) ethical considerations. Under clinical decision making, physicians emphasized scientific evidence and patient candidacy when assessing neurotechnologies for patients. Ongoing seizures without intervention was important for safety and neurodevelopment. Under ethical considerations, resource allocation, among other financial considerations for technology adoption, were considerable sources of pressure on decision making. Access to neurotechnology was a salient theme differentiating Canadian and American contexts. When assessing novel neurotechnological interventions for pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy, physicians balance clinical and ethical factors to guide decision making and best practice.