Ethics and informed consent of vagus nerve stimulation (vns) for patients with treatment-resistant depression (trd)
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Neuroethics 3 (1) (2010)
Since the Nuremberg trials (1947–1949), informed consent has become central for ethical practice in patient care and biomedical research. Codes of ethics emanating from the Nuremberg Code (1947) recognize the importance of protecting patients and research subjects from abuses, manipulation and deception. Informed consent empowers individuals to autonomously and voluntarily accept or reject participation in either clinical treatment or research. In some cases, however, the underlying mental or physical condition of the individual may alter his or her cognitive abilities and compromise the informed consent process. This is particularly true in chronic psychiatric conditions such as Treatment-Resistant Depression (TRD), where individuals may fail to respond to traditional antidepressant treatments (e.g., psychotherapy, pharmacotherapy). Moreover, it may raise further concerns for an individual’s motivation to consent and the level of understanding of the treatment or research procedure. This paper focuses on the informed consent process for Vagus Nerve Stimulation (VNS) in the treatment of individuals diagnosed with TRD. Specifically, the paper addresses how depression may affect the decision-making capacity of an individual and the potential ethical and legal impact of failure to appreciate the seven elements of the consenting process (competence, voluntariness, disclosure, recommendation, understanding, decision, and authorization). To ensure the protection of vulnerable individuals with psychiatric disorders such as TRD and promote ethical behavior in biomedical research and patient care while avoiding potential legal pitfalls, we propose a paradigm that requires a stringent evaluation process of decision-making capacity for informed consent.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Benedetto Vitiello (2008). Effectively Obtaining Informed Consent for Child and Adolescent Participation in Mental Health Research. Ethics and Behavior 18 (2 & 3):182 – 198.
Tom Walker (2013). Respecting Autonomy Without Disclosing Information. Bioethics 27 (7):388-394.
Oonagh Corrigan (ed.) (2009). The Limits of Consent: A Socio-Ethical Approach to Human Subject Research in Medicine. Oxford University Press.
David Wendler (2009). Must Research Participants Understand Randomization? American Journal of Bioethics 9 (2):3 – 8.
Leonard J. Haas (1991). Hide-and-Seek or Show-and-Tell? Emerging Issues of Informed Consent. Ethics and Behavior 1 (3):175 – 189.
David B. Annis (1984). Informed Consent, Autonomy, and the Law. Philosophy Research Archives 10:249-259.
Janet L. Brody, John P. Cluck & Alfredo S. Aragon (1997). Participants' Understanding of the Process of Psychological Research: Informed Consent. Ethics and Behavior 7 (4):285 – 298.
Piotr Zaborowski & Adam Górski (2004). Informed Consent and the Use of Placebo in Poland: Ethical and Legal Aspects. Science and Engineering Ethics 10 (1):167-178.
Deborah Bowman (2011). Informed Consent: A Primer for Clinical Practice. Cambridge University Press.
Michelle H. Biros (2007). Research Without Consent: Exception From and Waiver of Informed Consent in Resuscitation Research. Science and Engineering Ethics 13 (3):361-369.
Added to index2010-01-16
Total downloads17 ( #182,082 of 1,780,850 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #122,326 of 1,780,850 )
How can I increase my downloads?