» Articles » PMID: 24273622

Did My Brain Implant Make Me Do It? Questions Raised by DBS Regarding Psychological Continuity, Responsibility for Action and Mental Competence

Overview
Journal Neuroethics
Specialty Medical Ethics
Date 2013 Nov 26
PMID 24273622
Citations 25
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is a well-accepted treatment for movement disorders and is currently explored as a treatment option for various neurological and psychiatric disorders. Several case studies suggest that DBS may, in some patients, influence mental states critical to personality to such an extent that it affects an individual's personal identity, i.e. the experience of psychological continuity, of persisting through time as the same person. Without questioning the usefulness of DBS as a treatment option for various serious and treatment refractory conditions, the potential of disruptions of psychological continuity raises a number of ethical and legal questions. An important question is that of legal responsibility if DBS induced changes in a patient's personality result in damage caused by undesirable or even deviant behavior. Disruptions in psychological continuity can in some cases also have an effect on an individual's mental competence. This capacity is necessary in order to obtain informed consent to start, continue or stop treatment, and it is therefore not only important from an ethical point of view but also has legal consequences. Taking the existing literature and the Dutch legal system as a starting point, the present paper discusses the implications of DBS induced disruptions in psychological continuity for a patient's responsibility for action and competence of decision and raises a number of questions that need further research.

Citing Articles

Deep Brain Stimulation for Consciousness Disorders; Technical and Ethical Considerations.

Deli A, Green A Neuroethics. 2024; 17(3):35.

PMID: 39091894 PMC: 11289033. DOI: 10.1007/s12152-024-09570-5.


When Two Become One: Singular Duos and the Neuroethical Frontiers of Brain-to-Brain Interfaces.

Zohny H, Savulescu J Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2024; :1-13.

PMID: 38606432 PMC: 7617414. DOI: 10.1017/S0963180124000197.


A comparative review on neuroethical issues in neuroscientific and neuroethical journals.

Ishida S, Nishitsutsumi Y, Kashioka H, Taguchi T, Shineha R Front Neurosci. 2023; 17:1160611.

PMID: 37781239 PMC: 10536163. DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2023.1160611.


The Mystery of Mental Integrity: Clarifying Its Relevance to Neurotechnologies.

Zohny H, Lyreskog D, Singh I, Savulescu J Neuroethics. 2023; 16(3):20.

PMID: 37614938 PMC: 10442279. DOI: 10.1007/s12152-023-09525-2.


Ethical and regulatory issues of stem cell-derived 3-dimensional organoid and tissue therapy for personalised regenerative medicine.

Harris A, Walker M, Gilbert F BMC Med. 2022; 20(1):499.

PMID: 36575403 PMC: 9795739. DOI: 10.1186/s12916-022-02710-9.


References
1.
Patrick C, Curtin J, Tellegen A . Development and validation of a brief form of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire. Psychol Assess. 2002; 14(2):150-63. DOI: 10.1037//1040-3590.14.2.150. View

2.
Decker M, Fleischer T . Contacting the brain--aspects of a technology assessment of neural implants. Biotechnol J. 2008; 3(12):1502-10. DOI: 10.1002/biot.200800225. View

3.
Frank M, Samanta J, Moustafa A, Sherman S . Hold your horses: impulsivity, deep brain stimulation, and medication in parkinsonism. Science. 2007; 318(5854):1309-12. DOI: 10.1126/science.1146157. View

4.
Gabriels L, Cosyns P, Nuttin B, Demeulemeester H, Gybels J . Deep brain stimulation for treatment-refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder: psychopathological and neuropsychological outcome in three cases. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2003; 107(4):275-82. View

5.
Okada F, Okajima K . Violent acts associated with fluvoxamine treatment. J Psychiatry Neurosci. 2001; 26(4):339-40. PMC: 167189. View