深层脑刺激和神经调节治疗神经精神疾病的当前神经伦理学观点:对过去10年的范围回顾。

IF 3 Q2 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Jonathan Shaw, Sagar Pyreddy, Colton Rosendahl, Charles Lai, Emily Ton, Rustin Carter
{"title":"深层脑刺激和神经调节治疗神经精神疾病的当前神经伦理学观点:对过去10年的范围回顾。","authors":"Jonathan Shaw, Sagar Pyreddy, Colton Rosendahl, Charles Lai, Emily Ton, Rustin Carter","doi":"10.3390/diseases13080262","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The use of neuromodulation for the treatment of psychiatric disorders has become increasingly common, but this emerging treatment modality comes with ethical concerns. This scoping review aims to synthesize the neuroethical discourse from the past 10 years on the use of neurotechnologies for psychiatric conditions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 4496 references were imported from PubMed, Embase, and Scopus. The inclusion criteria required a discussion of the neuroethics of neuromodulation and studies published between 2014 and 2024.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 77 references, a majority discussed ethical concerns of patient autonomy and informed consent for neuromodulation, with neurotechnologies being increasingly seen as autonomy enablers. Concepts of changes in patient identity and personality, especially after deep brain stimulation, were also discussed extensively. The risks and benefits of neurotechnologies were also compared, with deep brain stimulation being seen as the riskiest but also possessing the highest efficacy. Concerns about equitable access and justice were raised regarding the rise of private transcranial magnetic stimulation clinics and the current experimental status of deep brain stimulation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Neuroethics discourse, particularly for deep brain stimulation, has continued to focus on how post-intervention changes in personality and behavior influence patient identity. Multiple conceptual frameworks have been proposed, though each faces critiques for addressing only parts of this complex phenomenon, prompting calls for pluralistic models. Emerging technologies, especially those involving artificial intelligence through brain computer interfaces, add new dimensions to this debate by raising concerns about neuroprivacy and legal responsibility for actions, further blurring the lines for defining personal identity.</p>","PeriodicalId":72832,"journal":{"name":"Diseases (Basel, Switzerland)","volume":"13 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12385989/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Current Neuroethical Perspectives on Deep Brain Stimulation and Neuromodulation for Neuropsychiatric Disorders: A Scoping Review of the Past 10 Years.\",\"authors\":\"Jonathan Shaw, Sagar Pyreddy, Colton Rosendahl, Charles Lai, Emily Ton, Rustin Carter\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/diseases13080262\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The use of neuromodulation for the treatment of psychiatric disorders has become increasingly common, but this emerging treatment modality comes with ethical concerns. This scoping review aims to synthesize the neuroethical discourse from the past 10 years on the use of neurotechnologies for psychiatric conditions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 4496 references were imported from PubMed, Embase, and Scopus. The inclusion criteria required a discussion of the neuroethics of neuromodulation and studies published between 2014 and 2024.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 77 references, a majority discussed ethical concerns of patient autonomy and informed consent for neuromodulation, with neurotechnologies being increasingly seen as autonomy enablers. Concepts of changes in patient identity and personality, especially after deep brain stimulation, were also discussed extensively. The risks and benefits of neurotechnologies were also compared, with deep brain stimulation being seen as the riskiest but also possessing the highest efficacy. Concerns about equitable access and justice were raised regarding the rise of private transcranial magnetic stimulation clinics and the current experimental status of deep brain stimulation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Neuroethics discourse, particularly for deep brain stimulation, has continued to focus on how post-intervention changes in personality and behavior influence patient identity. Multiple conceptual frameworks have been proposed, though each faces critiques for addressing only parts of this complex phenomenon, prompting calls for pluralistic models. Emerging technologies, especially those involving artificial intelligence through brain computer interfaces, add new dimensions to this debate by raising concerns about neuroprivacy and legal responsibility for actions, further blurring the lines for defining personal identity.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72832,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Diseases (Basel, Switzerland)\",\"volume\":\"13 8\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12385989/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Diseases (Basel, Switzerland)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/diseases13080262\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diseases (Basel, Switzerland)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/diseases13080262","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:使用神经调节治疗精神疾病已经变得越来越普遍,但这种新兴的治疗方式带来了伦理问题。这一范围审查的目的是综合神经伦理话语从过去的10年使用神经技术的精神疾病。方法:从PubMed、Embase和Scopus中导入4496篇文献。纳入标准需要讨论神经调节的神经伦理学和2014年至2024年间发表的研究。结果:在77篇参考文献中,大多数讨论了患者自主和神经调节知情同意的伦理问题,神经技术越来越被视为自主的推动者。患者身份和人格变化的概念,特别是脑深部刺激后,也进行了广泛的讨论。他们还比较了神经技术的风险和收益,其中深部脑刺激被认为是风险最大的,但也具有最高的功效。对于私人经颅磁刺激诊所的兴起以及目前深部脑刺激的实验状态,人们提出了对公平获取和公正的担忧。结论:神经伦理学论述,特别是关于深部脑刺激的论述,继续关注干预后人格和行为的改变如何影响患者的身份。已经提出了多个概念框架,尽管每个框架都面临着只解决这一复杂现象的部分问题的批评,这促使人们呼吁建立多元模型。新兴技术,尤其是那些通过脑机接口涉及人工智能的技术,增加了对神经隐私和行为法律责任的担忧,进一步模糊了个人身份定义的界限,从而为这场辩论增添了新的维度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Current Neuroethical Perspectives on Deep Brain Stimulation and Neuromodulation for Neuropsychiatric Disorders: A Scoping Review of the Past 10 Years.

Current Neuroethical Perspectives on Deep Brain Stimulation and Neuromodulation for Neuropsychiatric Disorders: A Scoping Review of the Past 10 Years.

Background: The use of neuromodulation for the treatment of psychiatric disorders has become increasingly common, but this emerging treatment modality comes with ethical concerns. This scoping review aims to synthesize the neuroethical discourse from the past 10 years on the use of neurotechnologies for psychiatric conditions.

Methods: A total of 4496 references were imported from PubMed, Embase, and Scopus. The inclusion criteria required a discussion of the neuroethics of neuromodulation and studies published between 2014 and 2024.

Results: Of the 77 references, a majority discussed ethical concerns of patient autonomy and informed consent for neuromodulation, with neurotechnologies being increasingly seen as autonomy enablers. Concepts of changes in patient identity and personality, especially after deep brain stimulation, were also discussed extensively. The risks and benefits of neurotechnologies were also compared, with deep brain stimulation being seen as the riskiest but also possessing the highest efficacy. Concerns about equitable access and justice were raised regarding the rise of private transcranial magnetic stimulation clinics and the current experimental status of deep brain stimulation.

Conclusions: Neuroethics discourse, particularly for deep brain stimulation, has continued to focus on how post-intervention changes in personality and behavior influence patient identity. Multiple conceptual frameworks have been proposed, though each faces critiques for addressing only parts of this complex phenomenon, prompting calls for pluralistic models. Emerging technologies, especially those involving artificial intelligence through brain computer interfaces, add new dimensions to this debate by raising concerns about neuroprivacy and legal responsibility for actions, further blurring the lines for defining personal identity.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信