Journal of Medical Ethics 38 (2):107-111 (2012)
Abstract |
Advances in neuromodulation and an improved understanding of the anatomy and circuitry of psychopathology have led to a resurgence of interest in surgery for psychiatric disease. Clinical trials exploring deep brain stimulation (DBS), a focally targeted, adjustable and reversible form of neurosurgery, are being developed to address the use of this technology in highly selected patient populations. Psychiatric patients deemed eligible for surgical intervention, such as DBS, typically meet stringent inclusion criteria, including demonstrated severity, chronicity and a failure of conventional therapy. Although a humanitarian device exemption by the US Food and Drug Administration exists for its use in obsessive-compulsive disorder, DBS remains a largely experimental treatment in the psychiatric context, with its use currently limited to clinical trials and investigative studies. The combination of a patient population at the limits of conventional therapy and a novel technology in a new indication poses interesting challenges to the informed consent process as it relates to clinical trial enrollment. These challenges can be divided into those that relate to the patient, their disease and the technology, with each illustrating how traditional conceptualisations of research consent may be inadequate in the surgical psychiatry context. With specific reference to risk analysis, patient autonomy, voluntariness and the duty of the clinician-researcher, this paper will discuss the unique challenges that clinical trials of surgery for refractory psychiatric disease present to the consent process. Recommendations are also made for an ethical approach to clinical trial consent acquisition in this unique patient population.
|
Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) |
Categories | (categorize this paper) |
DOI | 10.1136/jme.2010.042002 |
Options |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Download options
References found in this work BETA
Reasoning in Depression: Impairment on a Concept Discrimination Learning Task.Jane E. Baker & Shelley Channon - 1995 - Cognition and Emotion 9 (6):579-597.
Citations of this work BETA
No Going Back? Reversibility and Why It Matters for Deep Brain Stimulation.Jonathan Pugh - 2019 - Journal of Medical Ethics 45 (4):225-230.
Beyond Consent in Research.Emily Bell, Eric Racine, Paula Chiasson, Maya Dufourcq-Brana, Laura B. Dunn, Joseph J. Fins, Paul J. Ford, Walter Glannon, Nir Lipsman, Mary Ellen Macdonald, Debra J. H. Mathews & Mary Pat Mcandrews - 2014 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 23 (3):361-368.
Ethical Focal Points in the International Practice of Deep Brain Stimulation.Markus Christen, Christian Ineichen, Merlin Bittlinger, Hans-Werner Bothe & Sabine Müller - 2014 - American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience 5 (4):65-80.
Ethical Considerations in Ending Exploratory Brain–Computer Interface Research Studies in Locked-in Syndrome.Eran Klein, Betts Peters & Matt Higger - 2018 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 27 (4):660-674.
Rethinking Vulnerability.Farah Focquaert - 2013 - American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience 4 (1):44-45.
Similar books and articles
Deep Brain Stimulation in Children: Parental Authority Versus Shared Decision-Making.Farah Focquaert - 2013 - Neuroethics 6 (3):447-455.
Resolving Ethical Issues in Stem Cell Clinical Trials: The Example of Parkinson Disease.Bernard Lo & Lindsay Parham - 2010 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 38 (2):257-266.
What Difference Does It Make to Be Treated in a Clinical Trial? A Pilot Study.Charles Weijer, Benjamin Freedman, Abraham Fuks, James Robbins, Stanley Shapiro & Myriam Skrutkowska - unknown
Informed Consent and the Use of Placebo in Poland: Ethical and Legal Aspects.Piotr Zaborowski & Adam Górski - 2004 - Science and Engineering Ethics 10 (1):167-178.
Some Popular Versions of Uninformed Consent.Jane L. Hutton & Richard E. Ashcroft - 2000 - Health Care Analysis 8 (1):41-53.
Statistical Power, the Belmont Report, and the Ethics of Clinical Trials.Sara H. Vollmer & George Howard - 2010 - Science and Engineering Ethics 16 (4):675-691.
Brain, Mind and Machine: What Are the Implications of Deep Brain Stimulation for Perceptions of Personal Identity, Agency and Free Will?Nir Lipsman & Walter Glannon - 2013 - Bioethics 27 (9):465-470.
Genotyping in Clinical Trials: Towards a Principle of Informed Request.Hans-Martin Sass - 1998 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 23 (3):288 – 296.
Enhancing Informed Consent in Clinical Trials and Exploring Resistances to Disclosing Adverse Clinical Trial Results.John D. Banja & Boadie Dunlop - 2009 - American Journal of Bioethics 9 (8):39-41.
The Duty to Disclose Adverse Clinical Trial Results.S. Matthew Liao, Mark Sheehan & Steve Clarke - 2009 - American Journal of Bioethics 9 (8):24-32.
Ethical Issues Raised by Proposals to Treat Addiction Using Deep Brain Stimulation.Adrian Carter, Emily Bell, Eric Racine & Wayne Hall - 2011 - Neuroethics 4 (2):129-142.
Characterizing the Population in Clinical Trials: Barriers, Comparability, and Implications for Review.Charles Weijer - unknown
Informed Consent in Emergency Research: A Contradiction in Terms.Malcolm G. Booth - 2007 - Science and Engineering Ethics 13 (3):351-359.
Analytics
Added to PP index
2012-01-21
Total views
26 ( #441,433 of 2,519,650 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #406,756 of 2,519,650 )
2012-01-21
Total views
26 ( #441,433 of 2,519,650 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #406,756 of 2,519,650 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads