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.)

Background: The development of artificial intelligence (AI) raises ethical concerns about its side effects on the attitudes and behaviors of clinicians and medical practitioners. The authors aim to understand the medical ethics of AI-based chatbots and to suggest coping strategies for an emerging landscape of increased access and potential ambiguity using AI., Methods: This study examines the medical ethics of AI-based chatbots (Chat generative pretrained transformer [GPT], Bing Chat, and Google's Bard) using multiple-choice questions. ChatGPT and Bard correctly answered all questions (5/5), while Bing Chat correctly answered only 3 of 5 questions. ChatGPT explained answers simply. Bing Chat explained answers with references, and Bard provided additional explanations with details., Results: AI has the potential to revolutionize medical fields by improving diagnosis accuracy, surgical planning, and treatment outcomes. By analyzing large amounts of data, AI can identify patterns and make predictions, aiding neurosurgeons in making informed decisions for increased patient wellbeing. As AI usage increases, the number of cases involving AI-entrusted judgments will rise, leading to the gradual emergence of ethical issues across interdisciplinary fields. The medical field will be no exception., Conclusions: This study suggests the need for safety measures to regulate medical ethics in the context of advancing AI. A system should be developed to verify and predict pertinent issues., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Artificial intelligence (AI) has become increasingly used in neurosurgery. Generative pretrained transformers (GPTs) have been of particular interest. However, ethical concerns regarding the incorporation of AI into the field remain underexplored. We delineate key ethical considerations using a novel GPT-based, human-modified approach, synthesize the most common considerations, and present an ethical framework for the involvement of AI in neurosurgery., Methods: GPT-4, ChatGPT, Bing Chat/Copilot, You, Perplexity.ai, and Google Bard were queried with the prompt "How can artificial intelligence be ethically incorporated into neurosurgery?". Then, a layered GPT-based thematic analysis was performed. The authors synthesized the results into considerations for the ethical incorporation of AI into neurosurgery. Separate Pareto analyses with 20% threshold and 10% threshold were conducted to determine salient themes. The authors refined these salient themes., Results: Twelve key ethical considerations focusing on stakeholders, clinical implementation, and governance were identified. Refinement of the Pareto analysis of the top 20% most salient themes in the aggregated GPT outputs yielded 10 key considerations. Additionally, from the top 10% most salient themes, 5 considerations were retrieved. An ethical framework for the use of AI in neurosurgery was developed., Conclusions: It is critical to address the ethical considerations associated with the use of AI in neurosurgery. The framework described in this manuscript may facilitate the integration of AI into neurosurgery, benefitting both patients and neurosurgeons alike. We urge neurosurgeons to use AI only for validated purposes and caution against automatic adoption of its outputs without neurosurgeon interpretation., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Computational neurosurgery is a novel and disruptive field where artificial intelligence and computational modeling are used to improve the diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of patients affected by diseases of neurosurgical relevance. The field aims to bring new knowledge to clinical neurosciences and inform on the profound questions related to the human brain by applying augmented intelligence, where the power of artificial intelligence and computational inference can enhance human expertise. This transformative field requires the articulation of ethical considerations that will enable scientists, engineers, and clinical neuroscientists, including neurosurgeons, to ensure that the use of such a powerful application is conducted based on the highest moral and ethical standards with a patient-centric approach to predict and prevent mistakes. This declaration is a first attempt to draw a roadmap to guide the application of practical or applied ethics to computational neurosurgery. It is intended for the use of practitioners, ethicists, and scientists using artificial intelligence to understand and treat all the pathophysiological conditions related to the human brain., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

The rapid pace of development and application of digital technology and data science, including artificial intelligence (AI), is transforming our world. In this chapter, we address the question: "Is bioethics relevant to how we should develop, govern, and use AI in healthcare, specifically in neurosurgery?" We recognize that medical decision-making involves uncertainty and is complex, and predicting potential outcomes is difficult. We conclude that the use of AI in neurosurgery is not inherently unethical. Hence, the ethical question becomes: Do its benefits and potential benefits in neurosurgery outweigh its risks and harms, and what safeguards are needed to ensure this? Requiring and obtaining patients' valid informed consent is important, but what such consent requires is debatable. Earning and maintaining the trust of everyone involved, especially patients and clinicians, is also essential. We recommend that to ensure the ethical development and use of AI, neurosurgeons approach its use with knowledge of both the science of AI and applied ethics and employ moral humility and moral courage in their decision-making., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Psychiatric neurosurgery has resurfaced over the past two decades for the treatment of severe mental health disorders, with improved precision and safety over older interventions alongside the development of novel ones. Little is known, however, about current public opinions, expectations, hopes, and concerns over this evolution in neurotechnology, particularly given the controversial history of psychosurgery. To fill this knowledge gap, we conducted a study with eight focus groups in Vancouver and Montreal (Canada; n = 14), Berlin (Germany; n = 22), and Madrid (Spain; n = 12). Focus group texts were transcribed and analyzed using qualitative content analysis in the language local to each city, guided by the theoretical framework of pragmatic neuroethics. Findings indicate that participants across all cities hold concerns about the last resort nature of psychiatric neurosurgery and the potential impact on the authentic self of patients who undergo these procedures. The views captured serve to advance discussion on the appropriate timing for psychiatric neurosurgery, promote sound health policy for the allocation of this resource, and foster scientific literacy about advances for mental health internationally.

Objective: The aim of this study was to characterize the payments made by medical industry to neurosurgeons from 2014 to 2018., Methods: A retrospective study was performed from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2018 of the Open Payments Database. Collected data included the total number of industry payments, the aggregate value of industry payments, and the mean value of each industry payment made to neurosurgeons per year over the 5-year period., Results: A total of 105,150 unique surgeons, with 13,668 (12.99%) unique neurosurgeons, were identified to have received an industry payment during 2014-2018. Neurosurgeons were the second highest industry-paid surgical specialty, with a total 421,151 industry payments made to neurosurgeons, totaling $477,451,070. The mean average paid amount per surgeon was $34,932 (±$936,942). The largest proportion of payments were related to food and beverage (75.5%), followed by travel and lodging (14.9%), consulting fees (3.5%), nonconsulting service fees (2.1%), and royalties or licensing (1.9%), totaling 90.4% of all industry payments to neurologic surgeons. Summed across the 5-year period, the largest paid source types were royalties and licensing (64.0%; $305,517,489), consulting fees (11.8%; $56,445,950), nonconsulting service fees (7.3%; $34,629,109), current or prospective investments (6.8%, $32,307,959), and travel and lodging (4.8%, $22,982,165)., Conclusions: Our study shows that over the most recent 5-year period (2014-2018) of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments Database, there was a decreasing trend of the total number of payments, but an increasing trend of the total amount paid to neurosurgeons., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Scientific research can offer the joy of discovery. For many graduating neurosurgeons, often, a seminar, class, or instructional module is their first and only formal exposure to the world of conducting research responsibly, to write down and report the results of such research. The pressure to publish scientific research is high, but any young neurosurgeon who is unaware of how predatory publishers operate can get duped by it and can lose their valuable and hard-fought research. Hence, we have attempted to provide an overview of all potentially predatory neurosurgery publications and provide some "red flags" to recognize them., Methods: A suspected list of predatory publications was collected via a thorough review of the Neurosurgery journals listed in 4 major so-called blacklists, i.e., Beall's list, Manca's list, Cabell's blacklist, and Strinzel blacklist and then cross-referenced with UGC CARE whitelist to remove any potential legitimate journals. All journals with a scope of the Neurosurgery publication were searched using terms in the search bar: "Neurosurgery", "Neuroanatomy", "Neuropathology", and "Neurological disorder/disease". Since all predatory journals claim to be open access, all possible types of open access journals on Scimago were also searched, and thus a comparison was possible in terms of publication cost and number of legitimate open access journals when compared with predatory ones. In addition, methodologies by which these journals penetrate legitimate indexes like PubMed was investigated., Results: A total of 46 predatory journals were found and were enlisted along with their publishers and web addresses. Sixty of the 360 Neurosurgery journals listed on Scimago were open access and the fee for the predatory journals was substantially lower (< $150) when compared with legitimate journals ($900-$3000). Six types of open access types exist while a total of 26 red flags in 7 stages of publication can be found in predatory journals. These journals have penetrated indexes by having similar names to legitimate journals and by publishing articles with external funding which mandate their indexing., Conclusion: These 46 journals were defined as predatory by 4 major blacklists, and none of them was found in the UGC Care white list. They also fulfill the 26 red-flags that define a predatory journal. The blacklist detailed here may become redundant; hence "whenever in doubt" regarding a journal with "red-flags", the authors are advised to refer to whitelists to be on the safer side. Publishing in predatory journals leads to not only loss of valuable research but also discredits a researcher among his peers and can be hindrance in career progression. Some journals are even indexed on PubMed, and they have sophisticated webpages and high-quality online presentations.

When an incapacitated Jehovah's Witness neurologically deteriorates and requires immediate craniectomy, institutional protocols may delay surgery if the patient's refusal of blood products is ambiguous. We are among the first to describe such an ethically contentious case in emergency neurosurgery, review the morbidity of operative delays, discuss medicolegal concerns raised, and provide a detailed guide to hemostasis in patients who refuse blood products. We discuss the case of a 46-year-old woman presented with nausea, vomiting, and right-sided weakness, progressing to stupor over several hours. When an initial Computed Tomography (CT) scan showed a large, left-sided intraparenchymal hematoma with significant midline shift, she was booked for an emergency hemicraniectomy. According to the family, she was a Jehovah's Witness and would have refused blood consent, but was without the proper documentation. Despite her worsening neurological status, an indeterminate blood consent delayed surgery for more than two hours. Her neurological exam did not improve postoperatively, and she later expired. The ethical, legal, and operative concerns that arise in the emergency neurosurgical treatment of Jehovah's Witness patients pose unique management challenges. Since operative delay is a preventable cause of mortality in patients requiring urgent craniectomy, and the likelihood of requiring a transfusion from hemorrhage is minimal, an ambiguous blood consent should not postpone a potentially life-saving treatment. For the beneficence and autonomy of Jehovah's Witness patients, institutional policies should respect the family's wishes in order to expedite surgical decompression. In addition to discussing the nuances of such ethical considerations, we also provide a detailed list of commonly used, topical and parenteral hemostatic agents from the neurosurgical operating room which, depending on whether they are blood-derived, either should or should not be used when treating a Jehovah's Witness., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Pernkopf's atlas of Anatomy contains anatomical plates with detailed images of the peripheral nerves. Its use is controversial due to the author's association with the "Third Reich" and the potential depiction of victims of the Holocaust. The ethical implications of using this atlas for informing surgical planning have not been assessed., Objective: To (1) assess the role of Pernkopf's atlas in nerve surgeons' current practice and (2) determine whether a proposal for its ethical handling may provide possible guidance for use in surgery and surgical education., Methods: Members of American Society for Peripheral Nerve and PASSIO Education (video-based learning platform) were surveyed and 182 responses collected. The survey introduced the historical origin of Pernkopf's atlas, and respondents were asked whether they would use the atlas under specific conditions to serve as a recommendation for its ethical handling. An anatomical plate comparison between Netter's and Pernkopf's atlases was performed to compare anatomical accuracy and surgical utility., Results: Fifty-nine percent of respondents were aware of Pernkopf's atlas, with 13% currently using it. Aware of the historical facts, 69% were comfortable using the atlas, 15% uncomfortable, and 17% undecided. Additional information on conditions for an ethical approach to the use of the atlas led 76% of those "uncomfortable" and "undecided" to becoming "comfortable" with use., Conclusion: While the use of Pernkopf's atlas remains controversial, a proposal detailing conditions for an ethical approach in its use provides new guidance in surgical planning and education.

The field of biological psychiatry is controversial, with both academics and members of the public questioning the validity and the responsible use of psychiatric technological interventions. The field of neuroethics provides insight into these controversies by examining key themes that characterize specific topics, attitudes, and reasoning tools that people use to evaluate interventions in the brain and mind. This study offers new empirical neuroethical insights into how the public responds to the use and development of psychiatric technological interventions by comparing how the public evaluates pharmacological and neurosurgical psychiatric interventions, in the context of online comments on news media articles about these topics. We analyzed 1142 comments from 108 articles dealing with psychopharmacological and psychiatric neurosurgery interventions on websites of major circulation USA newspapers and magazines published between 2005 and 2015. Personal anecdote, medical professional issues, medicalization, social issues, disadvantages, scientific issues and cautionary realism were among the main themes raised by commenters. The insights derived from the comments can contribute to improving communication between professionals and the public as well as to incorporating the public's views in policy decisions about psychiatric interventions., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To examine the factors that may influence Chinese parent's willingness to donate their children's biospecimens for use in pediatric research. Study Design: Parents or caregivers of the patients in the neurosurgery ward, oncological surgery ward, and internal medical wards at Shanghai Children's Medical Center were recruited during the period of March 1, 2016 to July 8, 2018. The questionnaire included the willingness to provide consent for donating their children's clinical biospecimens, their attitudes toward and motivations for donating their children's clinical biospecimens, opinions of contributing specimens, and an ethical consideration for their children's future willingness to donate biospecimens. Participants' demographic data and children's basic information were collected. Results: The majority of the participants agreed to donate the patients' biospecimens for research. Parents with pronounced religious beliefs, less education, who had only one child, child with a more severe disease, and living in an urban district were associated with negative attitudes toward biospecimen donation, but none of other parents' sociodemographic characteristics and some of the children's basic characteristics disclosed significant differences in donation attitudes. In five different types of biospecimens, parents were more reluctant to donate specific blood biospecimens. Physical pain and privacy protection were of most concern to parents when it came to donating their child's biospecimens. It was widely believed in parents that reconsent would be necessary for the 18-year-old adolescent. Conclusions: Our findings explored the factors that were of greatest worry to parents related to parents' willingness to donate their child's biospecimens in China. We recommend greater patient explanation to enhance the participant's engagement in the biospecimen donation, and the adolescent's attitude toward biospecimen donation needs further consideration.

Background: Compared with other doctors, surgeons are at an increased risk of medicolegal events, including patient complaints and negligence claims. This retrospective study aimed to describe the frequency and nature of complaints involving surgeons compared with physicians., Methods: We assembled a national data set of complaints about surgeons and physicians lodged with medical regulators in Australia from 2011 to 2016. We classified the complaints into 19 issues across four domains: treatment and procedures, other performance, professional conduct and health. We assessed differences in complaint risk using incidence rate ratios (IRRs). Finally, we used a multivariate model to identify predictors of complaints among surgeons., Results: The rate of complaints was 2.3 times higher for surgeons than physicians (112 compared with 48 complaints per 1000 practice years, P < 0.001). Two-fifths (41%) of the higher rate of complaints among surgeons was attributable to issues other than treatments and procedures, including fees (IRR = 2.68), substance use (IRR = 2.10), communication (IRR = 1.98) and interpersonal behaviour (IRR = 1.92). Male surgeons were at a higher risk of complaints, as were specialists in orthopaedics, plastic surgery and neurosurgery., Discussion: Surgeons are more than twice as likely to attract complaints as their physician peers. This elevated risk arises partly from involvement in surgical procedures and treatments, but also reflects wider concerns about interpersonal skills, professional ethics and substance use. Improved understanding of these patterns may assist efforts to reduce harm and support safe practise., (© 2017 Royal Australasian College of Surgeons.)

Dr. William Beecher Scoville, an eminent American neurosurgeon of the 1940s, offered to treat Mr Molaison for his intractable epilepsy. During the operation, he removed large portions of both of Mr. Molaison's temporal lobes. Such an operation had never been performed earlier as the function of these parts of the brain was not clearly understood and neurosurgeons such as Dr. Wilder Penfield of Canada feared they could cause grave damage to the patient. Mr. Molaison developed severe loss of memory to the extent that a few minutes after meeting someone, he had no recollection of the meeting and he could not find his way to his own home. Mr. Dittrich, grandson of Dr. Scoville, has analysed the operation on Mr. Molaison's brain against the background of neurosurgery in the 1940s. This essay discusses the ethical aspects of Dr. Scoville's operation in the light of current understanding and practice.

Ethical discussions around health care reform typically focus on problems of social justice and health care equity. This review, in contrast, focuses on ethical issues of particular importance to neurosurgeons, especially with respect to potential changes in the physician-patient relationship that may occur in the context of health care reform.The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 (H.R. 3590) was not the first attempt at health care reform in the United States but it is the one currently in force. Its ambitions include universal access to health care, a focus on population health, payment reform, and cost control. Each of these aims is complicated by a number of ethical challenges, of which 7 stand out because of their potential influence on patient care: the accountability of physicians and surgeons to individual patients; the effects of financial incentives on clinical judgment; the definition and management of conflicting interests; the duty to preserve patient autonomy in the face of protocolized care; problems in information exchange and communication; issues related to electronic health records and data security; and the appropriate use of "Big Data."Systematic social and economic reforms inevitably raise ethical concerns. While the ACA may have driven these 7 to particular prominence, they are actually generic. Nevertheless, they are immediately relevant to the practice of neurosurgery and likely to reflect the realities the profession will be obliged to confront in the pursuit of more efficient and more effective health care., (Copyright © 2017 by the Congress of Neurological Surgeons.)

Ethical issues in the field of pediatric neurosurgery, including prenatal diagnosis, palliative care for children with an intractable serious disease, and medical neglect, are discussed. An important role of medicine is to offer every possible treatment to a patient. However, it also is the responsibility of medicine to be conscious of its limitations, and to help parents love and respect a child who suffers from an incurable disease. When dealing with cases of medical neglect and palliative care for an incurable disease, it is critical to diagnose the child's condition accurately and evaluate the outcome. However, to treat or not to treat also depends on the medical resources and social-economic status of the community, the parents' religion and philosophy, the policies of the institutions involved, and the limits of medical science. Moral dilemmas will continue to be addressed as medical progress yields treatments for untreatable diseases in the future.

For a curious and extraordinary coincidence, 5 of the 7 most relevant leaders of the Italian Communist Party (Partito Comunista Italiano, which was established in 1921, has been the biggest Communist Party in Western Countries) suffered a cerebral stroke. Cerebrovascular diseases afflicted also Stalin and Lenin, and a number of Presidents of the United States. We present the stories of 2 important Italian political leaders who shared both the leadership role of the major left Italian Party and the dramatic experience of a subarachnoid hemorrhage. Retracing their medical incidents, separated by 50 years of history, we show how a fatal medical disease has become neurosurgical and successfully cured thanks to the advances of neurosurgery, neuroradiology, and hospital organization. A neurologic disease that was disgraceful 50 years ago has lost any disquieting and embarrassing significance in the present time to the light of evolution of vascular neurosurgery., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The term "Defensive" medicine was coined in the early 1970's and has been an important topic of scientific investigation and professional debate ever since., Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the characteristics of defensive medicine, its reasons, and the extent to which it is practiced in the Turkish health care system. This is the first national survey to study the practice of defensive medicine among neurosurgeons in Turkey., Methods: The present cross-sectional study on defensive medicine assessed neurosurgeons registered at the Turkish Neurosurgical Society, who are actively working in various centers and hospitals within the Turkish health care system. A 40-question survey was adapted from existing measures described in the literature and was completed by a total of 404 neurosurgeons, representing 36.7% of the neurosurgeons registered at the Turkish Neurosurgical Society., Results: Seventy-two percent of the participants in the current study reported practicing defensive medicine. This practice was mainly reported among inexperienced neurosurgeons (74.4%). Most were younger than 40 years of age (75.2%), working in state hospitals/universities (72.7%), and living in the Marmara region (38%). Respondents reported engaging in defensive medicine by avoiding high-risk surgery (62.6%), ordering additional imaging studies (60.9%) and laboratory tests (33.7%), and referring patients to consultants (31.2%). Most participants consider every patient as a potential threat in terms of a medical lawsuit (68.3%) and do not believe the courts can distinguish malpractice from complications (89.6%)., Conclusion: Concerns and perceptions about medical liability lead neurosurgeons to practice defensive medicine. By avoiding high-risk surgery, ordering unnecessary diagnostic tests, and referring the patients to consultants, neurosurgeons try to minimize the risk of malpractice and protect themselves from legal risks, resulting in higher healthcare expenditure and longer treatment periods.

Object: Conflict of interest (COI) as it applies to medical education and training has become a source of considerable interest, debate, and regulation in the last decade. Companies often pay surgeons as faculty for educational events and often sponsor and give financial support to major professional society meetings. Professional medical societies, industry, and legislators have attempted to regulate potential COI without consideration for public opinion. The practice of evidence-based medicine requires the inclusion of patient opinion along with best available evidence and expert opinion. The primary goal of this study was to assess the opinion of the general population regarding surgeon-industry COI for education-related events., Methods: A Web-based survey was administered, with special emphasis on the surgeon's role in industry-sponsored education and support of professional societies. A survey was constructed to sample opinions on reimbursement, disclosure, and funding sources for educational events., Results: There were 501 completed surveys available for analysis. More than 90% of respondents believed that industry funding for surgeons' tuition and travel for either industry-sponsored or professional society educational meetings would either not affect the quality of care delivered or would cause it to improve. Similar results were generated for opinions on surgeons being paid by industry to teach other surgeons. Moreover, the majority of respondents believed it was ethical or had no opinion if surgeons had such a relationship with industry. Respondents were also generally in favor of educational conferences for surgeons regardless of funding source. Disclosures of a surgeon-industry relationship, especially if it involves specific devices that may be used in their surgery, appears to be important to respondents., Conclusions: The vast majority of respondents in this study do not believe that the quality of their care will be diminished due to industry funding of educational events, for surgeon tuition, and/or travel expenses. The results of this study should help form the basis of policy and continued efforts at surgeon-industry COI management.

Bioethics is a new discipline which developed as modern medical and scientific breakthroughs surpassed the ability of traditional medical ethics to contend with unique ethical dilemmas. It evolved into an interdisciplinary discourse regarding the ethical and societal implications of medicine and the biomedical sciences. Wilder Penfield (1891-1976), celebrated neurosurgeon and neuroscientist, is rarely thought of as a "bioethicist," and his mention in texts on the history of bioethics is little more than a footnote. However, he appears to have contributed to the field of bioethics in a number of ways: through his solutions to the ethical problems posed by the unique form of surgery he developed; through his recognition of the limitations of traditional medical ethics; through his involvement of the public and other disciplines in ethical discussions; and through the impact that his work still has today in the area of bioethics termed "neuroethics."

Objective: Contributing to medical practice in developing countries has become increasingly prevalent. Primary care and preventative health initiatives have been most visible, although attention has recently shifted to surgical disease, which represents a large burden in resource-poor settings. Typically dominated by individual efforts, there is now a more concerted approach, with surgical care being included in the comprehensive primary health care plan set by the World Health Organization. Although ethical dilemmas in international surgery have been discussed sporadically in the context of specific missions from the visiting surgeon/team perspective, we are missing a comprehensive evaluation of these issues in the literature. Here we have chosen to systematically categorize ethical issues confronted while teaching and operating in a developing country into 2 broad categories: venue (i.e., host) and visitor related., Methods: For each category, topics within follow an ordinal sequence that one might use when designing a surgical education mission. Illustrative examples are provided, as well as a depiction of the ethical principles or theories involved., Results and Conclusions: This article provides a discussion written from visiting and host surgeon perspectives on diverse ethical challenges for which there is limited literature, including location selection, unmet needs at home, role of sponsors, and personal gain. In addition to candid discussion and a solutions-focused approach, the reader is provided with an "ethical checklist" for international surgical education, akin to the World Health Organization surgical safety checklist, to serve as a framework for the design of surgical missions that avoid ethical pitfalls., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The concept of futility has been a source of discussion for many years. Even though it is tempting to propose that an action or clinical intervention should be deemed futile if it does not achieve the goals of that action, further clarification is needed in terms of the nature of the likely outcomes of an intervention and the probabilities of various outcomes being achieved. The outcome, in an age of balance between autonomy and necessity, should, at a minimum, be acceptable to the person on whom the intervention is to be performed. This is especially the case when considering outcome following decompressive craniectomy for severe traumatic brain injury, in which certain outcomes are likely to be severely impaired states that the patient would consider unacceptable. In this article, we use some key ethical concepts such as substantial benefit and the risk of unbearable badness to explore the concept of futility in severe traumatic brain injury and, by linking that to recent advances in neurosurgical science, propose a pragmatic patient-centered approach to deal with the concept of futility.

Background: The allocation of limited healthcare resources poses a constant challenge for clinicians. One everyday example is the prioritization of elective neurosurgical operating room (OR) time in circumstances where cancellations may be encountered. The bioethical framework, Accountability for Reasonableness (A4R) may inform such decisions by establishing conditions that should be met for ethically-justifiable priority setting., Objective: Here, we describe our experience in implementing A4R to guide decisions regarding elective OR prioritization., Methods: The four primary expectations of the A4R process are: (1) relevance, namely achieved by support for the process and criteria for decisions amongst all stakeholders; (2) publicity, satisfied by the effective communication of the results of the deliberation; (3) challengeability through a fair appeals process; and (4) Oversight of the process to ensure that opportunities for its improvement are available., Results: A4R may be applied to inform OR time prioritization, with benefits to patients, surgeons and the institution itself. We discuss various case-, patient-, and surgeon-related factors that may be incorporated into the decision-making process. Furthermore, we explore challenges encountered in the implementation of this process, including the need for timely neurosurgical decision-making and the presence of hospital-based power imbalances., Conclusion: The authors recommend the implementation of a fair, deliberative process to inform priority setting in neurosurgery, as demonstrated by the application of the A4R framework to allocate limited OR time.

Within the context of global health development approaches, surgical missions to provide care for underserved populations remain the least studied interventions with regard to their methodology. Because of the unique logistical needs of delivering operative care, surgical missions are often described solely in terms of cases performed, with a paucity of discourse on medical ethics. Within surgery, subspecialties that serve patients on a non-elective basis should, it could be argued, create mission strategies that involve a didactic approach and the propagation of sustainable surgical care. The ethical considerations have yet to be described for paediatric neurosurgical outreach missions. We present here the perspectives of neurosurgeons who have participated in surgical outreach missions in Central America, South America, Eastern Europe and sub-Saharan Africa from the vantage point of both the visiting mission team and the host team that accommodates the mission efforts.

Innovation in medicine has led to advances directly benefitting patients. Yet recent legislation has created intense scrutiny of the relationship between surgeons and industry. Critics argue that surgeon-held patents and royalties incentivize surgeon loyalty, influencing decision making as to which devices are used intraoperatively. We explored the potential for inventor-related conflicts of interest. We searched patent records from the United States Patent and Trademark Office for every diplomate recognized by the American Board of Neurological Surgeons (4868 neurosurgeons). We also searched physician payment registries of the 5 largest device makers; of these, Medtronic, DePuy, and Zimmer were the only companies with available registries. A total of 147 neurosurgeons (3.0%) hold a total of 582 patents; the number of patents held per neurosurgeon ranges from 1 to 53. The fields in which patents are held include tumor (125), spine (98), vascular (54), trauma (27), stereotaxy/image guidance (88), pain (19), peripheral nerve (2), electrical stimulation (63), and pediatrics (9); surgical instruments (59), drug delivery (17), and other (21) account for the remainder. The total amount of royalties received by neurosurgeons in 2010 is expected to be $13,223,000 (minimum: $7K, maximum: $8.261M). Despite public and legislative perceptions of widespread conflicts of interest, there are relatively few neurosurgeons who hold patents and receive significant royalties.

Objective: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is an approved neurosurgical intervention for motor disorders such as Parkinson disease. The emergence of psychiatric uses for DBS combined with the fact that it is an invasive and expensive procedure creates important ethical and social challenges in the delivery of care that need further examination. We endeavored to examine health care provider perspectives on ethical and social challenges encountered in DBS., Methods: Health care providers working in Canadian DBS surgery programs participated in a semistructured interview to identify and characterize ethical and social challenges of DBS. A content analysis of the interviews was conducted., Results: Several key ethical issues, such as patient screening and resource allocation, were identified by members of neurosurgical teams. Providers described challenges in selecting patients for DBS on the basis of unclear evidence-based guidance regarding behavioral issues or cognitive criteria. Varied contexts of resource allocation, including some very challenging schemas, were also reported. In addition, the management of patients in the community was highlighted as a source of ethical and clinical complexity, given the need for coordinated long-term care., Conclusions: This study provides insights into the complexity of ethical challenges that providers face in the use of DBS across different neurosurgical centers. We propose actions for health care providers for the long-term care and postoperative monitoring of patients with DBS. More data on patient perspectives in DBS would complement the understanding of key challenges, as well as contribute to best practices, for patient selection, management, and resource allocation., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The widespread inclusion of surgical strategies in the treatment of medically intractable epilepsy is largely justified by the medical and psychosocial burden of the illness. Performing these procedures in pediatric populations is associated with distinct challenges ranging from unique seizure etiologies to issues surrounding brain development and functional plasticity. As the trend toward more aggressive surgical intervention continues, the ethical foundation of current and emerging practices must be increasingly scrutinized. Here, we present the first article discussing ethical issues in the surgical management of medically intractable epilepsies in children. We discuss principles of informed consent, harm reduction, and justice in this vulnerable patient population. We also highlight the unique ethical challenge of surgical decision making concerning developmentally delayed children. The recognition of these issues is essential to providing patient-centered, responsible, and ethical care., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

This Statement of Ethics in Neurosurgery was developed by the Committee for Ethics and Medico-Legal Affairs of the World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies to help neurosurgeons resolve problems in the treatment of individual patients and meet obligations to the larger society. This document is intended as a framework rather than a set of rules. It cannot cover every situation and should be used with flexibility. However, it is our intent that the fundamental principles enunciated here should serve as a guide in the day-to-day practice of neurosurgery., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)