Search

The ethical recruitment of participants with neurological disorders in clinical research requires obtaining initial and ongoing informed consent. The purpose of this study is to characterize barriers faced by research personnel in obtaining informed consent from research participants with neurological disorders and to identify strategies applied by researchers to overcome those barriers. This study was designed as a web-based survey of US researchers with an optional follow-up interview. A subset of participants who completed the survey were selected using a stratified purposeful sampling strategy and invited to participate in an in-depth qualitative interview by phone or video conference. Data were analyzed using a mixed methods approach, including content analysis of survey responses and thematic analysis of interview responses. Over 1 year, 113 survey responses were received from US research personnel directly involved in obtaining informed consent from participants in neurological research. Frequently identified barriers to informed consent included: cognitive and communication impairments (e.g. aphasia), unrealistic expectations of research participants, mistrust of medical research, time constraints, literacy barriers, lack of available social support, and practical or resource-related constraints. Strategies to enhance informed consent included: involving close others to support participant understanding of study-related information, collaborating with more experienced research personnel to facilitate training in obtaining informed consent, encouraging participants to review consent forms in advance of consent discussions, and using printed materials and visual references. Beyond conveying study-related information, researchers included in this study endorsed ethical responsibilities to support deliberation necessary to informed consent in the context of misconceptions about research, unrealistic expectations, limited understanding, mistrust, and/or pressure from close others. Findings highlight the importance of training researchers involved in obtaining informed consent in neurological research to address disease-specific challenges and to support the decision-making processes of potential research participants and their close others.

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) crisis provoked an organizational ethics dilemma: how to develop ethical pandemic policy while upholding our organizational mission to deliver relationship- and patient-centered care. Tasked with producing a recommendation about whether healthcare workers and essential personnel should receive priority access to limited medical resources during the pandemic, the bioethics department and survey and interview methodologists at our institution implemented a deliberative approach that included the perspectives of healthcare professionals and patient stakeholders in the policy development process. Involving the community more, not less, during a crisis required balancing the need to act quickly to garner stakeholder perspectives, uncertainty about the extent and duration of the pandemic, and disagreement among ethicists about the most ethically supportable way to allocate scarce resources. This article explains the process undertaken to garner stakeholder input as it relates to organizational ethics, recounts the stakeholder perspectives shared and how they informed the triage policy developed, and offers suggestions for how other organizations may integrate stakeholder involvement in ethical decision-making as well as directions for future research and public health work.

Supported decision making, as outlined by Peterson et al. highlights real-world challenges in the messy context of clinical care (Peterson et al. 2021). We agree with Peterson et al. that patients ...

Despite an abundance of academic conferences, clinical ethicists lacked a forum to share innovative practices with peers and to generate solutions to common challenges. Organizers of the first Clinical Ethics Un-Conference developed a working event centered on active participation and problem solving through peer learning, with the goal of improving real-world practice. Registrants included 95 individuals from 64 institutions. Attendees were surveyed immediately after the Un-Conference, and again eight months later. After eight months, 85 percent (n = 33/39) of the survey respondents reported that they found the event "highly impactful" or "somewhat impactful" to their clinical practice, and 23 attendees reported that they had implemented ideas or projects inspired by the event. Three sets of best practice guidelines and four white papers were published from the event. As the field of clinical ethics continues to advance and evolve, this working event format offers an innovative, disruptive alternative to a traditional conference format and may serve as a model for future efforts aimed at improving real-world clinical ethics practice.

ObjectiveTo assess perceptions and opinions about the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval process for disease-modifying therapies (DMT) in people living with multiple sclerosis (MS).MethodsPeople living with MS were invited to complete a web-based survey of their perceptions of the FDA role and process for approval of MS medications. The survey asked about the role of the FDA, factors involved in the approval process, which voices should represent those with MS in deliberations about drug approval, and the level of comfort with uncertain safety of newly approved therapies.ResultsThree thousand thirty-three respondents met inclusion criteria for data analysis. Most respondents seemed to understand the role of the FDA, although only half understood a fundamental FDA role: balancing the risks and benefits when considering drug approval. Significant differences were observed in many areas between those who have and have not tried DMTs. Comfort with uncertainty was associated with several factors relating to side effects and benefits believed important for the FDA to consider. Most respondents reported that people who participated in the medication's clinical trial were particularly able to represent people living with MS.ConclusionPerceptions regarding the FDA and views of who should represent people living with MS varied between those who have and have not tried DMT. There is variability in personal values that should be recognized and taken into account when considering regulatory responsibilities. Interventions are needed to address educational gaps regarding the mission and trustworthiness of the FDA as an oversight body.

As clinical trials end, little is understood about how participants exiting from clinical trials approach decisions related to the removal or post-trial use of investigational brain implants, such as deep brain stimulation (DBS) devices. This empirical bioethics study examines how research participants experience the process of exit from research at the end of clinical trials of implanted neural devices. Using a modified grounded theory study design, we conducted semi-structured, in-depth interviews with 16 former research participants from clinical trials of DBS and responsive neurostimulation (RNS). Open-ended questions elicited motivations for joining the trial, understanding of study procedures at the time of initial informed consent, the process of exiting from research, and decisions about device removal or post-trial device use. Thematic analysis identified categories related to: limited preparedness for the end of research participation, straightforwardness of decisions to explant or keep the device, reconciling with the end of research participation, reconciling post-trial expectations, and achieving a sense of closure after exit from research. A preliminary theoretical model describes contextual factors influencing the process and experience of exit from research. Experiences of clinical trial participants should guide research practices to enhance the ethical design and conduct of clinical trials in DBS and other brain devices.

Prenatal cell-free DNA screening (cfDNA) provides more genetic risk information about the fetus than has ever been possible. At the same time, the rapid expansion of new cfDNA panels raises important questions about how to structure patient-centered discussions that best support patients' decision-making about its use. To address this question, we conducted interviews with pregnant patients to identify decision-making needs and preferences with respect to cfDNA in patient-centered healthcare discussions, given its evolving capability to identify a range of fetal variants. Personal utility was a core concept guiding decision-making. Participants spoke of how their deeply personal values and beliefs about maternal responsibility, actionability, and tolerance of uncertainty framed their view of the personal utility of cfDNA screening. While discussing their notions of personal utility with their healthcare provider, participants also had concerns about potential ramifications for the provider-patient relationship and shared decision-making when disclosing values and preferences regarding disability, quality of life, and termination-particularly as it becomes possible to identify variants with different disease-associated severity and outcomes. The complexities associated with the introduction of genomics in prenatal care present unique challenges to structuring effective shared decision-making discussions between patients and their healthcare providers. While efforts are underway to determine how to best educate patients about the medical aspects of cfDNA, it is equally important to develop approaches in healthcare communication that enable patients to make informed, values-based decisions about the use of cfDNA and its impact on their pregnancy.

Objective: For concussions to be effectively managed in sports, they need to be correctly identified and reported. The extent to which professional athletes correctly recognize concussions, and their willingness to report symptoms, is not yet well understood. Given the risk of head injuries leading to concussions across combat sports, insight into professional fighters' knowledge and reporting of concussive symptoms is essential to improve concussion management. Methods: To investigate understanding and reporting patterns of concussions sustained while training or competing, 257 fighters completed a self-report questionnaire assessing self-perception of concussion knowledge, trust of ringside medical providers, and reported number of previous head injuries. Fighting history, including number of knockouts, was obtained from self-report (amateur) and published (professional) records. Results: Significant gaps in fighters' perceived knowledge of concussion symptoms and long-term effects of multiple concussions emerged. Approximately 40% of fighters reported returning to training or competition the same day a head injury was sustained, while 21% of fighters endorsed concealing symptoms of head injury from medical providers and coaches. Conclusions: Confusion surrounding terms used to describe head injuries amongst fighters (e.g., concussions, knockouts), coupled with limited understanding of concussive symptoms and a desire to return to competition, likely contributes to significant underreporting of symptoms.

Clinical ethics consultants should show bold moral courage in discharging their duties to patients, families, and healthcare providers. Given the corrosive impact on trust, and on the appropriate d...

Gilbert and colleagues (2018) point out the discrepancy between the limited empirical data illustrating changes in personality (and related concepts of identity, agency, authenticity, autonomy, and self, i.e., PIAAAS) following implantation of deep brain stimulating (DBS) electrodes and the vast number of conceptual neuroethics papers implying that these changes are widespread, deleterious, and clinically significant. Their findings are reminiscent of C. P. Snow’s essay on the divide between the two cultures of the humanities (representing the conceptual publications) and the sciences (representing the empirical work). This division in the literature raises significant ethical concerns surrounding unjustified fear of personality changes in the context of DBS and negative perceptions of clinician-scientists engaged in DBS. These concerns have real world implications for funding future innovative, DBS trials aimed to reduce suffering as well as hampering true interdisciplinary scholarship. We argue that the philosophical tradition of pragmatism and the value it places on empirical inquiry, experiential knowledge, and inter-disciplinary scholarship – reflecting diverse ways of knowing – provides a framework to start to address the important questions Gilbert and colleagues raise. In particular, we highlight the importance of expert clinician knowledge in contributing to the neuroethical questions raised by Gilbert and colleagues. Finally, we provide illustrative examples of some of our interdisciplinary empirical research that demonstrate the iterative cycle of inquiry characteristic of pragmatism in which conceptual neuroethics questions have led to empirical studies whose results then raise additional conceptual questions that give rise to new empirical studies in a way that highlights the contributions of the humanities and the sciences.

During extreme systemic disasters, choices of whether and when to offer neurosurgical procedures presents as complex ethical balancing of values. McQuire et al. include this ethical challenge in th...

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is an implanted neurological device effective in treating motor symptoms of Parkinson disease (PD), such as tremor, rigidity, and bradykinesia. More than 150,000 patients worldwide have been implanted with DBS devices. Questions arise at the end of life concerning how to provide best care for patients with DBS, including its continued benefit or potential complications, yet, no published articles provide guidance for hospice providers regarding the management of DBS devices in end-of-life care. With contributions from hospice physicians, a neurosurgeon, and ethicists, this article provides recommendations to address clinical and ethical challenges in optimizing DBS for patients with PD nearing the end of life.

ObjectiveTo determine using a repeated-measures, prospective design whether deep brain stimulation (DBS) results in changes in the importance of symptom and behavioral goals individually identified by patients with Parkinson disease (PD) before DBS surgery.MethodsFifty-two participants recruited from a consecutive series completed a semistructured interview soliciting their rank-ordered symptom and behavioral goals and corresponding visual analog scales measuring perceived symptom severity and limits to goal attainment. Rank orders were reassessed at 2 times after DBS. Changes in rank order over time were examined with χ2 analyses. The relationships between change in symptom severity/limits to behavioral goal attainment and change in rank order were examined with mixed-effects linear regression models.ResultsMost participants changed the rank order of their symptom (81%) and behavioral (77%) goals 3 months after DBS surgery. Change in rank order of symptom goals was significantly related to change in severity ratings such that improvements in self-reported symptom severity were associated with reductions in rank. In contrast, no such relationship was evident for the behavioral goals.ConclusionThese data illustrate how patients' primary goals for DBS shift early in stimulation and highlight the important differences between symptom and behavioral goals. Changes in the rank order of symptom goals were related to changes in symptom severity, whereas subtler shifts in behavioral goals were unrelated to improvements after DBS. This observation suggests that DBS does not affect goals that may be more reflective of core personal values. The findings provide empiric data that can help improve the informed consent process.

Brummett and Salter (2019) lament the “confused and confusing” debate on the question: “Can clinical ethicists offer justified, normative recommendations for active patient cases?” In response, the...

Objective The experience with deep brain stimulation (DBS) for pain is largely based on uncontrolled studies targeting the somatosensory pathways, with mixed results. We hypothesized that targeting limbic neural pathways would modulate the affective sphere of pain and alleviate suffering. Methods We conducted a prospective, double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover study of DBS targeting the ventral striatum/anterior limb of the internal capsule (VS/ALIC) in 10 patients with poststroke pain syndrome. One month after bilateral DBS, patients were randomized to active DBS or sham for 3 months, followed by crossover for another 3-month period. The primary endpoint was a ≥50% improvement on the Pain Disability Index in 50% of patients with active DBS compared to sham. This 6-month blinded phase was followed by an 18-month open stimulation phase. Results Nine participants completed randomization. Although this trial was negative for its primary and secondary endpoints, we did observe significant differences in multiple outcome measures related to the affective sphere of pain (eg, Montgomery–Asberg Depression Rating Scale, Beck Depression Inventory, Affective Pain Rating Index of the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire). Fourteen serious adverse events were recorded and resolved. Interpretation VS/ALIC DBS to modulate the affective sphere of pain represents a paradigm shift in chronic pain management. Although this exploratory study was negative for its primary endpoint, VS/ALIC DBS demonstrated an acceptable safety profile and statistically significant improvements on multiple outcome measures related to the affective sphere of pain. Therefore, we believe these results justify further work on neuromodulation therapies targeting the affective sphere of pain. Ann Neurol 2017;81:653–663

Importance Developing more and better diagnostic and therapeutic tools for central nervous system disorders is an ethical imperative. Human research with neural devices is important to this effort and a critical focus of the National Institutes of Health Brain Research Through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative. Despite regulations and standard practices for conducting ethical research, researchers and others seek more guidance on how to ethically conduct neural device studies. This article draws on, reviews, specifies, and interprets existing ethical frameworks, literature, and subject matter expertise to address 3 specific ethical challenges in neural devices research: analysis of risk, informed consent, and posttrial responsibilities to research participants. Observations Research with humans proceeds after careful assessment of the risks and benefits. In assessing whether risks are justified by potential benefits in both invasive and noninvasive neural device research, the following categories of potential risks should be considered: those related to surgery, hardware, stimulation, research itself, privacy and security, and financial burdens. All 3 of the standard pillars of informed consent—disclosure, capacity, and voluntariness—raise challenges in neural device research. Among these challenges are the need to plan for appropriate disclosure of information about atypical and emerging risks of neural devices, a structured evaluation of capacity when that is in doubt, and preventing patients from feeling unduly pressured to participate. Researchers and funders should anticipate participants’ posttrial needs linked to study participation and take reasonable steps to facilitate continued access to neural devices that benefit participants. Possible mechanisms for doing so are explored here. Depending on the study, researchers and funders may have further posttrial responsibilities. Conclusions and Relevance This ethical analysis and points to consider may assist researchers, institutional review boards, funders, and others engaged in human neural device research.

This chapter explores ethical issues in obtaining ongoing consent for clinical research involving cognitively vulnerable patient populations. Stakeholders in these challenges include researchers, sponsors, study participants, caregivers and other legally authorized representatives, and research oversight boards. First, this chapter examines existing conceptual frameworks and proposed safeguards for the protection of cognitively vulnerable research participants, including double consent, proxy consent with participant assent, advance consent, and process consent. This chapter then proposes an inclusionary approach to obtaining ongoing consent to research participation when cognition could fluctuate over the course of research participation. Proposed safeguards and modifications to the consent process should address duration of research participation, the nature and timing of research-related risks, expected and unexpected fluctuations in decision-making capacity, and the process of exiting a clinical trial. The proposed framework is then applied to the specific context of implanted neural device trials, with special attention to considerations for device explant.

The article Pragmatismand the Importance of Interdisciplinary Teams in Investigating Personality Changes Following DBS

Aim The American Academy of Pediatrics statement on institutional ethics committees highlights the importance of paediatric ethics consultation. However, little has been published on actual experience with ethics consultation in paediatrics. The objective of this study was to review and describe topics covered by a large retrospective sample of clinical ethics consultations in paediatric medicine. Methods We reviewed ethics consultations involving patients of

When deciding whether to offer deep brain stimulation earlier than usual for Parkinson disease, it is important to consider not only the patient's autonomy but also the validity of the evidence and concepts of harm that are being used to form practice policies.

The case of Ms. L. provides a wonderful opportunity to highlight the underlying value commitments that often deeply influence decisionmaking in medicine and more specifically in innovative neurosurgical procedures. In order to give a fair opinion on how Dr. Impf, as clinician and researcher, should act, a much richer and thicker understanding of the actual perspectives of the stakeholders would be necessary. Because this is not available, I highlight three important elements: the terms under which the deep brain stimulation (DBS) is implanted, the proper goals of a healthcare team, and the fallacy of a “natural” or immutable self. These elements are brought together in this case by a set of unexpected effects on the patient that were not intended and that are judged and categorized differently by various stakeholders within the case. In the end, I hope that there was full transparency and agreement about obligations, responsibilities, and outcomes prior to the implantation of the DBS between the physician and patient. Further, it is important to remember that just because a result is serendipitous does not mean that it should be discounted as a proper benefit. Finally, each person authors variations on their own self that are molded by environment and social networks. If Ms. L. continues to demonstrate an ability to author a desired self, the DBS is no more inappropriate a tool than many other artifacts that are used regularly by others to mold themselves.

Cognitive enhancing modalities continue to be developed to target a variety of attributes, including memory, attention, reasoning, processing speed, and affect. The availability of cognitive enhancing modalities raises important ethical questions and considerations, particularly for the treating physicians. For example, is it ethically permissible or prohibited to prescribe a healthy patient a drug that would increase cognitive functioning? What arguments might justify the prescription or application of a cognitive enhancement for a patient? What arguments and considerations justify prohibiting cognitive enhancements or imposing various restrictions and guidelines for use? This chapter provides physicians with ethical resources needed to address these questions.

Objective Discuss common clinical ethical challenges encountered in working with patients who are candidates for deep brain stimulation (DBS) for the treatment of motor symptoms of Parkinson's disease (PD). Method The relevant literature is reviewed and supplemented by descriptive, ethically challenging cases stemming from decades of combined experience working on DBS teams. We outline ethical arguments and provide pragmatic recommendations to assist neuropsychologists working in movement disorder teams. Results The goals of the pre-operative neuropsychological DBS assessment include: (1) identification of potential cognitive risk factors; (2) identification of relevant neuropsychiatric or neurobehavioral factors; (3) assessment of level of family support; and (4) systematic assessment of patient's and family member's goals or expectations for DBS. The information gleaned from the pre-operative neuropsychological assessment is highly relevant to the most commonly studied clinical ethics challenges encountered in DBS: (1) assessment of risk/benefit; (2) determinations regarding inclusion/exclusion; (3) autonomy; and (4) patient's perception of benefit and quality of life. Conclusions Neuropsychologists are particularly well poised to provide unique and important insights to assist with developing the most ethically sound practices that take into account patient's values as well as fiduciary responsibilities to the patient, the team, the profession, and the broader community.

The experience with deep brain stimulation (DBS) for pain is largely based on uncontrolled studies targeting the somatosensory pathways, with mixed results. We hypothesized that targeting limbic neural pathways would modulate the affective sphere of pain and alleviate suffering.We conducted a prospective, double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover study of DBS targeting the ventral striatum/anterior limb of the internal capsule (VS/ALIC) in 10 patients with poststroke pain syndrome. One month after bilateral DBS, patients were randomized to active DBS or sham for 3 months, followed by crossover for another 3-month period. The primary endpoint was a ≥50% improvement on the Pain Disability Index in 50% of patients with active DBS compared to sham. This 6-month blinded phase was followed by an 18-month open stimulation phase.Nine participants completed randomization. Although this trial was negative for its primary and secondary endpoints, we did observe significant differences in multiple outcome measures related to the affective sphere of pain (eg, Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Beck Depression Inventory, Affective Pain Rating Index of the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire). Fourteen serious adverse events were recorded and resolved.VS/ALIC DBS to modulate the affective sphere of pain represents a paradigm shift in chronic pain management. Although this exploratory study was negative for its primary endpoint, VS/ALIC DBS demonstrated an acceptable safety profile and statistically significant improvements on multiple outcome measures related to the affective sphere of pain. Therefore, we believe these results justify further work on neuromodulation therapies targeting the affective sphere of pain. Ann Neurol 2017;81:653-663.

Objective:To report prospective repeated measures data detailing the perceived benefit of deep brain stimulation (DBS) on the most commonly cited symptom and activity goals identified by patients with Parkinson disease.Methods:Fifty-two participants were recruited from a consecutive series. Participants completed a semi-structured interview soliciting their symptom and behavioral goals and corresponding visual analog scales measuring perceived symptom severity and limits to goal attainment. Severity ratings were completed prior to and at 2 times following DBS. Changes in severity over time were assessed using a mixed effects linear model. The pattern of relationships between the severity ratings and standard clinical research (SCR) measures routinely administered were examined using Pearson correlations.Results:The most common symptom goals were improvements in tremor, gait, and nonmotor symptoms, whereas the most frequent behavioral goals related to interpersonal relationships, work, and avocational pursuits. Most severity ratings were significantly correlated with each other but not with the SCR measures. Significant improvements were evident on all SCR measures after DBS. Participants' severity ratings for their symptom and behavioral goals improved significantly over time although not all severity ratings changed in the same manner.Conclusions:These data illustrate that improvements in participants' individually defined goals were evident over time and that some of these improvements occurred in areas in which the benefits associated with DBS are not as well-documented. The participants' severity ratings were not redundant with SCR measures, suggesting that novel and potentially important information can be gleaned by systematically assessing patients' goals.

Neil Levy offers the most prominent moral principles that are specifically and exclusively designed to apply to neuroethics. His two closely related principles, labeled as versions of the ethical parity principle (EPP), are intended to resolve moral concerns about neurological modification and enhancement [1]. Though EPP is appealing and potentially illuminating, we reject the first version and substantially modify the second. Since his first principle, called EPP (strong), is dependent on the contention that the mind literally extends into external props such as paper notebooks and electronic devices, we begin with an examination of the extended mind hypothesis (EMH) and its use in Levy’s EPP (strong). We argue against reliance on EMH as support for EPP (strong). We turn to his second principle, EPP (weak), which is not dependent on EMH but is tied to the acceptable claim that the mind is embedded in, because dependent on, external props. As a result of our critique of EPP (weak), we develop a modified version of EPP (weak), which we argue is more acceptable than Levy’s principle. Finally, we evaluate the applicability of our version of EPP (weak).

Cognitive impairment and dementia pose particular challenges in the management of patients with Parkinson's disease (PD). Decision-making capacity can render patients vulnerable in a way that requires careful ethical considerations by clinicians with respect to medical decision making, research participation, and public safety. Clinicians should discuss how future decisions will be made as early in the disease course as possible. Because of cognitive, visual, and motor impairments, PD may be associated with unsafe driving, leading to early driving cessation in many. DBS of the STN and, to a lesser degree, globus pallidus interna (GPi) has consistently been associated with decreased verbal fluency, but significant global cognitive decline is usually not observed in patients who undergo rigorous selection. There are some observations suggesting lesser cognitive decline in GPi DBS than STN DBS, but further research is required. Management of PD dementia (PDD) patients involves both pharmacological and nonpharmacological measures. Patients with PDD should be offered treatment with a cholinesterase inhibitor taking into account expected benefits and potential risks. Treatment with neuroleptics may be necessary to treat psychosis; classical neuroleptics, as well as risperidone and olanzapine, should be avoided. Quetiapine might be considered first-line treatment because it does not need special monitoring, although the strongest evidence for efficacy exists for clozapine. Evidence from randomized, controlled studies in the PDD population is lacking; selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors may be used to treat depressive features. Clonazepam or melatonin may be useful in the treatment of rapid eye movement behavior disorder.

Researchers designing a clinical trial may be aware of disputed evidence of serious risks from previous studies. These researchers must decide whether and how to describe these risks in their model informed consent document. They have an ethical obligation to provide fully informed consent, but does this obligation include notice of controversial evidence? With ACCORD as an example, we describe a framework and criteria that make clear the conditions requiring inclusion of important controversial risks. The ACCORD model consent document did not include notice of prior trials with excess death. We develop and explain a new standard labeled risk in equipoise. We argue that our approach provides an optimal level of integrity to protect the informational needs of the reasonable volunteers who agree to participate in clinical trials. We suggest language to be used in a model consent document and the informed consent discussion when such controversial evidence exists.

This article utilizes the case of Ms H. to examine the contrasting ways that surrogate decision makers move from simply hearing information about the patient to actually knowing and understanding the patient's medical condition. The focus of the case is on a family's request to actually see the patient's wounds instead of being told about the wounds, and the role of clinical ethicists in facilitating this request. We argue that clinical ethicists have an important role to play in the work of converting information into knowledge and that this can serve as a valuable way forward in the midst of seemingly intractable conflicts in the medical setting.

Candidates for epilepsy surgery often use the word "hope" to express their attitudes and beliefs about surgery. However, studies suggest that hope has a multiplicity of meanings that are not well understood. The goal of this analysis was to evaluate whether Candidates for epilepsy surgery use hope language to express a traditional, expected optimism during presurgery interviews. We examined patients' uses of the word "hope" and its derivatives (hoping, hopeful, hopefully) through a secondary analysis of 37 interviews of adult patients prior to epilepsy surgery. Approximately 1/3 of all hope statements were coded as expressions of optimism, while 1/3 were not optimistic, and 1/3 had unclear meanings. In addition to traditionally optimistic uses of the term, other themes surrounding use of this word included ideas of dread, worry, uncertainty, and temporizing language. This information may help clinicians communicate more effectively with patients, enhancing the informed consent process for epilepsy surgery.

Progress towards validating amyloid beta as an early indicator of Alzheimer's disease (AD) heightens the need for evaluation of stakeholders' perspectives of the benefits and harms of preclinical testing in asymptomatic individuals.Investigators conducted and analyzed 14 semi-structured interviews with family members of patients diagnosed with AD.Participants reported benefits, including the potential to seek treatment, make lifestyle changes, and prepare for cognitive impairment. Participants identified harms, including social harms, adverse life decisions, and psychological harms. Nine participants reported either a "positive global perspective" or a "positive global perspective (qualified)."Results from this study characterized stakeholders' perspectives on the potential benefits and harms of clinical use of preclinical testing for AD. Investigators used data from this study to develop a framework that contributes to ongoing discussions that will evaluate widespread adoption of preclinical testing and will inform future research.

Assessment of outcome following Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) has traditionally focused on symptom specific and quality of life measures. Greater attention needs to be paid to the diversity of patient goals and values, as well as recognition of the shifting nature of those goals over the course of DBS therapy. We report preliminary data from an empirical study examining patients' goals with respect to DBS in the treatment of Parkinson disease. We argue that a multifaceted assessment of outcome over time, including well validated symptom measures, quality of life, functional and patient specific metrics, is ethically necessary in order to fulfill fiduciary and professional responsibilities. These assessments should be augmented with a deliberative multi-disciplinary process of review and evaluation. Such an approach will lead to improved inform consent, promote better clinical research, and facilitate good patient care by providing a systematic mechanism for capturing and acting on important patient insights. These processes become increasingly critical as DBS begins to be applied to neuropsychiatric disorders.

The vulnerability of patients receiving significantly innovative neurosurgical procedures, either as research or as non-standard therapy, presents particularly potent challenges for those attempting to substantially advance clinical Neurosurgical practice in the most ethically and efficacious manner. This beginning formulation has built into it several important notions about research participation, balancing values, and clinical advancement in the context of neurological illness. For the time being, allow vulnerability to act as a placeholder for circumstances or states of being wherein the established checks and balances of power and interest are no longer sufficient in promoting the just treatment of persons. Further, the phrase to substantially advance Neurosurgical practice encompasses radical innovation as well as significant research into new procedures. Finally, few of these explorations involve true randomized placebo controlled trials, but rather they enroll patients rightfully hoping for some benefit by means of undergoing the procedure.When a neurosurgeon asks me, as an ethicist, to meet with a patient who has medically refractory disease and no good standard therapy options remaining, he is asking for help concerning whether to offer, as a last chance, an unproven therapy as either innovation or research.