Search

Gilbert et al. have raised important questions about the empirical grounding of neuroethical analyses of the apparent phenomenon of Deep Brain Stimulation ‘causing’ personality changes. In this paper, we consider how to make neuroethical claims appropriately calibrated to existing evidence, and the role that philosophical neuroethics has to play in this enterprise of ‘evidence-based neuroethics’. In the first half of the paper, we begin by highlighting the challenges we face in investigating changes to PIAAAS following DBS, explaining how different trial designs may be of different degrees of utility, depending on how changes to PIAAAS following DBS are manifested. In particular, we suggest that the trial designs Gilbert et al. call for may not be able to tell us whether or not DBS directly causes changes to personality. However, we suggest that this is not the most significant question about this phenomenon; the most significant question is whether these changes should matter morally, however they are caused. We go on to suggest that neuroethical analyses of novel neuro-interventions should be carried out in accordance with the levels of evidence hierarchy outlined by the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM), and explain different ways in which neuroethical analyses of changes to PIAAAS can be evidence-based on this framework. In the second half of the paper, we explain how philosophical neuroethics can play an important role in contributing to mechanism-based reasoning about potential effects on PIAAAS following DBS, a form of evidence that is also incorporated into the CEBM levels of evidence hierarchy.

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) is a recent technique that has shown some promising short-term results in patients with chronic refractory neuropathic pain. Three years after the first case series, we assessed its efficacy on a larger cohort, with longer follow-up.Twenty-four patients (19 males; average age, 49.1 years) with neuropathic pain underwent bilateral ACC DBS. Patient-reported outcome measures were collected before and after surgery, using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), Short-Form 36 quality of life (SF-36), McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), and EuroQol 5-domain quality of life (EQ-5D) questionnaire.Twenty-two patients after a trial week were fully internalized and 12 had a mean follow-up of 38.9 months. Six months after surgery the mean NRS score decreased from 8.0 to 4.27 (P = 0.004). There was a significant improvement in the MPQ (mean, -36%; P = 0.021) and EQ-5D score significantly decreased (mean, -21%; P = 0.036). The physical functioning domain of SF-36 was significantly improved (mean, +54.2%; P = 0.01). Furthermore, in 83% of these patients, at 6 months, NRS score was improved by 60% (P < 0.001) and MPQ decreased by 47% (P < 0.01). After 1 year, NRS score decreased by 43% (P < 0.01), EQ-5D was significantly reduced (mean, -30.8; P = 0.05) and significant improvements were also observed for different domains of the SF-36. At longer follow-ups, efficacy was sustained up to 42 months in some patients, with an NRS score as low as 3.Follow-up results confirm that ACC DBS alleviates chronic neuropathic pain refractory to pharmacotherapy and improves quality of life in many patients.

Modern wireless implantable medical devices (IMDs) began to be widely introduced to medical practice in the early 2000s, when devices such as cardiac implants, insulin pumps, and neurological impla...

Background Innovative neurosurgical treatments present a number of known risks, the natures and probabilities of which can be adequately communicated to patients via the standard procedures governing obtaining informed consent. However, due to their novelty, these treatments also come with unknown risks, which require an augmented approach to obtaining informed consent. Objective This paper aims to discuss and provide concrete procedural guidance on the ethical issues raised by serious unexpected complications of novel deep brain stimulation treatments. Approach We illustrate our analysis using a case study of the unexpected development of recurrent stereotyped events in patients following the use of deep brain stimulation (DBS) to treat severe chronic pain. Examining these unexpected complications in light of medical ethical principles, we argue that serious complications of novel DBS treatments do not necessarily make it unethical to offer the intervention to eligible patients. However, the difficulty the clinician faces in determining whether the intervention is in the patient's best interests generates reasons to take extra steps to promote the autonomous decision making of these patients. Conclusion and recommendations We conclude with clinical recommendations, including details of an augmented consent process for novel DBS treatment.

The security of medical devices is critical to good patient care, especially when the devices are implanted. In light of recent developments in information security, there is reason to be concerned that medical implants are vulnerable to attack. The ability of attackers to exert malicious control over brain implants ("brainjacking") has unique challenges that we address in this review, with particular focus on deep brain stimulation implants. To illustrate the potential severity of this risk, we identify several mechanisms through which attackers could manipulate patients if unauthorized access to an implant can be achieved. These include blind attacks in which the attacker requires no patient-specific knowledge and targeted attacks that require patient-specific information. Blind attacks include cessation of stimulation, draining implant batteries, inducing tissue damage, and information theft. Targeted attacks include impairment of motor function, alteration of impulse control, modification of emotions or affect, induction of pain, and modulation of the reward system. We also discuss the limitations inherent in designing implants and the trade-offs that must be made to balance device security with battery life and practicality. We conclude that researchers, clinicians, manufacturers, and regulatory bodies should cooperate to minimize the risk posed by brainjacking.