Perspectives on informed assent and bodily integrity in prospective deep brain stimulation for youth with refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder

Q1 Arts and Humanities
Jared N Smith, Natalie Dorfman, Meghan Hurley, Ilona Cenolli, Kristin Kostick-Quenet, Gabriel Lazaro-Munoz, Eric A Storch, Jennifer Blumenthal-Barby
{"title":"Perspectives on informed assent and bodily integrity in prospective deep brain stimulation for youth with refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder","authors":"Jared N Smith, Natalie Dorfman, Meghan Hurley, Ilona Cenolli, Kristin Kostick-Quenet, Gabriel Lazaro-Munoz, Eric A Storch, Jennifer Blumenthal-Barby","doi":"10.1177/14777509231201265","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Deep brain stimulation is approved for treating refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder in adults under the US Food and Drug Administration Humanitarian Device Exemption, and studies have shown its efficacy in reducing symptom severity and improving quality of life. While similar deep brain stimulation treatment is available for pediatric patients with dystonia, it is not yet available for pediatric patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder, although soon could be. The prospect of growing indications for pediatric deep brain stimulation raises several ethical concerns relating to bodily integrity, the ability to offer informed assent, and the role pediatric patients play in the decision-making process. Objective The aim of this study is to solicit and assess the views of stakeholders (children, parents, clinicians) on pediatric assent, autonomy, and bodily integrity in the context of potential pediatric deep brain stimulation for obsessive-compulsive disorder. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with pediatric obsessive-compulsive disorder patients ( n = 21), caregivers of pediatric obsessive-compulsive disorder patients aged 14–18 ( n = 19), and clinicians with experience treating refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder ( n = 25). Interviews were transcribed and coded in MAXQDA 2018 and 2020 software and processed for thematic content analysis to isolate and compare specific themes. Results A majority of respondents (74%, 48/65) across all three stakeholder groups voiced that the decision-making process should be collaborative and involve everyone (clinicians: 84% or 21/25, caregivers 71% or 15/21, and patients 63% or 12/19). We identified a split between respondents’ views on who should have the final say in the event of disagreement (38% or 25/65 favored the patient versus 35% or 23/65 favoring caregivers). A split between respondents also emerged concerning the maturity relevant for deep brain stimulation decision-making, with 45% (29/65) favoring developmental maturity (age/physiological development) and 45% (29/65) favoring decisional maturity (capacity to understand and weigh information). A majority of clinicians indicated that they would not move forward with deep brain stimulation without securing patient assent (80% or 20/25), with some stating the only exception is if patient quality of life was very poor and/or they lacked insight. Both caregivers and patients expressed a significant respect for the patient's right to bodily integrity, with 67% of caregivers (14/21) and 68% of patients (13/19) justifying patient involvement in decision-making specifically with reference to infringements of bodily integrity. Conclusion Our findings demonstrate that despite broad agreement across stakeholders that the decision-making process for pediatric deep brain stimulation for obsessive-compulsive disorder should be collaborative and somehow involve pediatric patients, there is disagreement about what this process entails and what factors determine patient involvement in the process. However, there is agreement that children have a right to bodily and brain integrity, which should only be infringed upon in rare circumstances.","PeriodicalId":53540,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14777509231201265","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background Deep brain stimulation is approved for treating refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder in adults under the US Food and Drug Administration Humanitarian Device Exemption, and studies have shown its efficacy in reducing symptom severity and improving quality of life. While similar deep brain stimulation treatment is available for pediatric patients with dystonia, it is not yet available for pediatric patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder, although soon could be. The prospect of growing indications for pediatric deep brain stimulation raises several ethical concerns relating to bodily integrity, the ability to offer informed assent, and the role pediatric patients play in the decision-making process. Objective The aim of this study is to solicit and assess the views of stakeholders (children, parents, clinicians) on pediatric assent, autonomy, and bodily integrity in the context of potential pediatric deep brain stimulation for obsessive-compulsive disorder. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with pediatric obsessive-compulsive disorder patients ( n = 21), caregivers of pediatric obsessive-compulsive disorder patients aged 14–18 ( n = 19), and clinicians with experience treating refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder ( n = 25). Interviews were transcribed and coded in MAXQDA 2018 and 2020 software and processed for thematic content analysis to isolate and compare specific themes. Results A majority of respondents (74%, 48/65) across all three stakeholder groups voiced that the decision-making process should be collaborative and involve everyone (clinicians: 84% or 21/25, caregivers 71% or 15/21, and patients 63% or 12/19). We identified a split between respondents’ views on who should have the final say in the event of disagreement (38% or 25/65 favored the patient versus 35% or 23/65 favoring caregivers). A split between respondents also emerged concerning the maturity relevant for deep brain stimulation decision-making, with 45% (29/65) favoring developmental maturity (age/physiological development) and 45% (29/65) favoring decisional maturity (capacity to understand and weigh information). A majority of clinicians indicated that they would not move forward with deep brain stimulation without securing patient assent (80% or 20/25), with some stating the only exception is if patient quality of life was very poor and/or they lacked insight. Both caregivers and patients expressed a significant respect for the patient's right to bodily integrity, with 67% of caregivers (14/21) and 68% of patients (13/19) justifying patient involvement in decision-making specifically with reference to infringements of bodily integrity. Conclusion Our findings demonstrate that despite broad agreement across stakeholders that the decision-making process for pediatric deep brain stimulation for obsessive-compulsive disorder should be collaborative and somehow involve pediatric patients, there is disagreement about what this process entails and what factors determine patient involvement in the process. However, there is agreement that children have a right to bodily and brain integrity, which should only be infringed upon in rare circumstances.
对难治性强迫症青少年前瞻性深部脑刺激的知情同意和身体完整性的看法
在美国食品和药物管理局人道主义设备豁免下,深部脑刺激被批准用于治疗成人难治性强迫症,研究表明其在减轻症状严重程度和改善生活质量方面的疗效。虽然类似的深部脑刺激治疗可以用于患有肌张力障碍的儿童患者,但目前还不能用于患有强迫症的儿童患者,尽管很快就会实现。儿童深部脑刺激的适应症越来越多,这一前景引发了一些伦理问题,涉及身体完整性、知情同意的能力以及儿科患者在决策过程中所扮演的角色。本研究的目的是征求和评估利益相关者(儿童、家长、临床医生)在潜在的儿童深部脑刺激治疗强迫症的背景下对儿童同意、自主性和身体完整性的看法。方法采用半结构化访谈法,对21例儿童强迫症患者、19例14 ~ 18岁儿童强迫症护理人员和25例有治疗难治性强迫症经验的临床医生进行访谈。访谈在MAXQDA 2018和2020软件中进行转录和编码,并进行主题内容分析,以分离和比较特定主题。结果:在所有三个利益相关者群体中,大多数受访者(74%,48/65)表示,决策过程应该是协作的,每个人都应该参与(临床医生:84%或21/25,护理人员:71%或15/21,患者:63%或12/19)。我们确定了受访者对谁应该在不同意的情况下拥有最终发言权的看法之间的分歧(38%或25/65赞成患者,35%或23/65赞成护理人员)。受访者之间也出现了关于与深部脑刺激决策相关的成熟度的分歧,45%(29/65)赞成发育成熟度(年龄/生理发育),45%(29/65)赞成决策成熟度(理解和权衡信息的能力)。大多数临床医生表示,在没有获得患者同意的情况下(80%或20/25),他们不会继续进行深部脑刺激,一些人表示,只有在患者生活质量非常差和/或他们缺乏洞察力的情况下才会例外。护理人员和患者都对患者身体完整的权利表示了极大的尊重,67%的护理人员(14/21)和68%的患者(13/19)认为患者参与决策是合理的,特别是在侵犯身体完整的情况下。我们的研究结果表明,尽管利益相关者广泛同意儿科深部脑刺激治疗强迫症的决策过程应该是协作的,并以某种方式让儿科患者参与,但对于这一过程需要什么以及哪些因素决定患者参与这一过程,存在分歧。然而,人们一致认为,儿童有身体和大脑完整的权利,只有在极少数情况下才应该受到侵犯。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Clinical Ethics
Clinical Ethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
42
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信