Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Introduction
- Section I Information problems
- Section II End of life care
- Section III Pregnant women and children
- Section IV Genetics and biotechnology
- Section V Research ethics
- Section VI Health systems and institutions
- Section VII Using clinical ethics to make an impact in healthcare
- Section VIII Global health ethics
- Section IX Religious and cultural perspectives in bioethics
- Section X Specialty bioethics
- Introduction
- 56 Surgical ethics
- 57 Anesthesiology ethics
- 58 Critical and intensive care ethics
- 59 Emergency and trauma medicine ethics
- 60 Primary care ethics
- 61 Infectious diseases ethics
- 62 Psychiatric ethics
- 63 Neuroethics
- 64 Pharmacy ethics
- 65 Alternative and complementary care ethics
- Index
- References
63 - Neuroethics
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 October 2009
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Introduction
- Section I Information problems
- Section II End of life care
- Section III Pregnant women and children
- Section IV Genetics and biotechnology
- Section V Research ethics
- Section VI Health systems and institutions
- Section VII Using clinical ethics to make an impact in healthcare
- Section VIII Global health ethics
- Section IX Religious and cultural perspectives in bioethics
- Section X Specialty bioethics
- Introduction
- 56 Surgical ethics
- 57 Anesthesiology ethics
- 58 Critical and intensive care ethics
- 59 Emergency and trauma medicine ethics
- 60 Primary care ethics
- 61 Infectious diseases ethics
- 62 Psychiatric ethics
- 63 Neuroethics
- 64 Pharmacy ethics
- 65 Alternative and complementary care ethics
- Index
- References
Summary
Mr. L is a 65-year-old man who has entered early retirement after a long and successful career as a business executive. Having had little time to keep up with current political events, let alone scientific events for which he always had particular curiosity while making his fortune, he has begun to devour a number of major newspapers each day and listen to medical talk shows. He even recently bought a subscription to a high-quality science news publication geared for the educated lay public, and goes on the Internet daily to read news alerts he has signed up for about major scientific advances. His interest in having a brain scan is piqued by Internet and print media advertisements for a computed tomographic scan of the whole body, which includes a free head scan, and by announcements from a nearby university known to be doing cutting-edge Alzheimer' research recruiting for subjects in his age group. He is puzzled by some claims made that preventive brain scans find serious conditions before the manifestations of symptoms. He asks his physician if he should purchase the scan service and if the research opportunity he is offered could serve the same purpose.
What is neuroethics?
Neuroethics is a new field at the intersection of bioethics and neuroscience that focuses on the ethics of neuroscience research and the ethical issues that emerge in the translation of neuroscience research to the clinical and public domain (Marcus, 2002; Illes and Racine, 2007).
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Textbook of Bioethics , pp. 495 - 504Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2008
References
American Medical Association (1999). Policy E-5.015: Direct-to-Consumer Advertisements of Prescription Drugs. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association (http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/print/8347.html) accessed 23 March 2006.
American Medical Association (2001). AMA Code of Ethics. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association (www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/2498.html) accessed 23 March 2006.
, , , , and (1987). False hopes and best data: consent to research and the therapeutic misconception. Hastings Cent Rep 17: 20–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (2003). The ethicality of using fear for social advertising. Aust Market J 11: 12–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2000). Student perceptions of methylphenidate abuse at a public liberal arts college. J Am Coll Health 49: 143–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2001). Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 5th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
, , and (2005). Internet use and stigmatized illness. Soc Sci Med 61: 1821–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
British Medical Association (2005). Trust in Doctors. London: British Medical Association (www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/MORI05) accessed 23 March 2006.
and (2004). Do the print media “hype” genetic research? A comparison of newspaper stories and peer-reviewed research papers. CMAJ 170: 1399–1407.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , , et al. (2003). Drugs in the news: an analysis of Canadian newspaper coverage of new prescription drugs. CMAJ 168: 1133–7.Google ScholarPubMed
(2004). The commercialisation of medical and scientific reporting. PLoS Med 1: e38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(2004). Statistical Report: Primary Brain Tumors in the United States, 1997–2001. Hinsdale, NJ: Central Brain Tumor Registry of the United States.Google Scholar
(2002). Conflicts of interest in magnetic resonance imaging: issues in clinical practice and research. Top Magn Reson Imaging 13: 73–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , and (1997). Educational material about genetic tests: does it provide key information for patients and practitioners?Am J Med Genet 73: 314–20.3.0.CO;2-M>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(2001). Genetic optimism: framing genes and mental illness in the news. Cult Med Psychiatry 25: 225–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(2005). Imagining a neuroethics which would go further than genethics. Am J Bioethics 5: 29–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , , and (2001). A method for evaluating the ethics of fear appeals. J Public Policy Market 12: 120–9.Google Scholar
, , , et al. (2004). Neurocognitive enhancement: what can we do and what should we do?Nat Rev Neurosci 5: 421–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , and (2003). Examining the FDA's oversight of direct-to-consumer advertising. Health Aff (Millwood) Suppl Web Exclusives, W3-120-3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gallup Poll (2005). Nurses Remain Atop Honesty and Ethics List. Princeton: Gallup Poll (http://poll.gallup.com/content/?ci=20254) accessed 23 March 2006.
, , and (2002). Limitations of direct-to-consumer advertising for clinical genetic testing. JAMA 288: 1762–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , and (2003). Direct-to-consumer sales of genetic services on the Internet. Genet Med 5: 332–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1980). Ethical considerations of psychosurgery: the unhappy legacy of the prefrontal lobotomy. J Med Ethics 6: 149–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimes v. Kennedy Krieger Institute, Inc. (2001). West's Atl Rep782: 807–62.
and (2006). Direct-to-consumer advertising: should there be a free market in healthcare information. Camb Q Healthc Ethics 15: 42–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Health Canada (2004). Whole Body Screening Using MRI or CT Technology. Ottawa: Health Canada (www.hc-sc.gc.ca/iyh-vsv/med/mri-irm_e.html) accessed 23 March 2006.
(2005). Formation, malformation, and transformation: my experience as medical student and patient. Stanford Med Stud Clin J 9: 22–5.Google Scholar
(2004). Direct-to-consumer marketing of prescription drugs: a current perspective for neurologists and psychiatrists. CNS Drugs 18: 69–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (2005). Neuroethics: a dialogue on a continuum from tradition to innovation. Am J Bioethics 5: 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2007). Neuroethics: From neurotechnology to healthcare. Camb Q Healthc Ethics 16: 125–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , et al. (2003a). Self-referred whole-body CT imaging: current implications for health care consumers. Radiology 228: 346–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , et al. (2004a). Advertising, patient decision making, and self-referral for computed tomographic and magnetic resonance imaging. Arch Intern Med 164: 2415–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , et al. (2004b). Discovery and disclosure of incidental findings in neuroimaging research. J Magn Reson Imaging 20: 743–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , et al. (2004c). Ethical consideration of incidental findings on adult brain MRI in research. Neurology 62: 888–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , for the Working Group on Incidental Findings in Brain Imaging Research (2006). Incidental findings in brain imaging research. Science 311: 783–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , and (1999). Incidental findings on brain magnetic resonance imaging from 1000 asymptomatic volunteers. JAMA 281: 36–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , , and (2002). Incidental findings on pediatric MR images of the brain. Am J Neuroradiol 23: 1674–7.Google Scholar
, , and (2006). Subjects' expectations in neuroimaging research. J Magn Reson Imaging 23: 205–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , , et al. (2006). Nonmedical use of prescription stimulants in the United States. Drug Alc Depend 84: 135–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , and (2004). Science in the news: a study of reporting genomics. Public Underst Sci 13: 309–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(ed.) (2002). Neuroethics: Mapping the Field, Conference Proceedings. New York: Dana Foundation.Google Scholar
, , and (2005). Psychosurgery: past, present, and future. Brain Res Rev 48: 409–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , , et al. (2005). Deep brain stimulation for treatment-resistant depression. Neuron 45: 651–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(2005). Dietary Supplements: Balancing Consumer Choice and Safety. Albany, NY: Department of Health.Google Scholar
and (2004). Unregulated direct-to-consumer marketing and self-referral for screening imaging services. Arch Intern Med 164: 2406–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (1988). For the Patient's Good: The Restoration of Beneficence in Health Care. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
, , and (2005b). Ethics and scientific accuracy in print media coverage of modern neurotechnology. In Proceedings of the 2005 Annual Meeting of the Society for Neuroscience, Washington.Google Scholar
, , , et al. (2006). Hyped biomedical science or uncritical reporting? Press coverage of genomics (1992–2001) in Québec. Soc Sci Med 62: 1278–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (2007). Internet marketing of neuroproducts: New practices and healthcare policy challenges. Camb Q Healthc Ethics 16: 181–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (2002). Health information on the Internet: Quality issues and international initiatives. JAMA 287: 2713–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , , and (2002). Ethical, and practical issues in applying functional imaging to the clinical management of Alzheimer's disease. Brain Cogn 50: 498–519.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , and (1997). Factors affecting the impact of negatively and positively framed ad messages. J Consum Res 24: 285–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2004). The Internet's impact on the practice of psychiatry. Can J Psychiatry 49: 5–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1999). Direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising. Am J Law Med 25: 149–67.Google ScholarPubMed
(2004). Poised to challenge need for sleep, “wakefulness enhancer” rouses concerns. JAMA 291: 167–70.Google Scholar
(2005). Framing neuroethics: a sociological assessment of the neuroethical imagination. Am J Bioethics 5: 25–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (2006). Incidental findings in magnetic resonance imaging of the brains of healthy young men. J Neurol Sci 210: 81–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , et al. (2004). Physicians report on patient encounters involving direct-to-consumer advertising. Health Aff (Millwood), Suppl Web Exclusives, W4-19-33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(2002). Direct-to-consumer advertising: education or emotion promotion. N Engl J Med 346: 524–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(2002). Treatment, enhancement, and the ethics of neurotherapeutics. Brain Cogn 50: 387–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , and (2005). Emerging neurotechnologies for lie-detection: promises and perils. Am J Bioethics 5: 39–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
- 13
- Cited by