Separating hope from hype: some ethical implications of the development of deep brain stimulation in psychiatric research and treatment

Ethical Considerations in the Implantation of Neuromodulatory Devices

OBJECTIVES

Neuromodulatory devices are increasingly used by neurosurgeons to manage a variety of chronic conditions. Given their potential benefits, it is imperative to create clear ethical guidelines for the use of these devices. We present a tiered ethical framework for neurosurgeon recommendations for the use of neuromodulatory devices.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a literature review to identify factors neurosurgeons should consider when choosing to offer a neuromodulatory device to a patient.

RESULTS

Neurosurgeons must weigh reductions in debilitating symptoms, improved functionality, and preserved quality of life against risks for intraoperative complications and adverse events due to stimulation or the device itself. Neurosurgeons must also evaluate whether patients and families will maintain responsibility for the management of neuromodulatory devices. Consideration of these factors should occur on an axis of resource allocation, ranging from provision of neuromodulatory devices to those with greatest potential benefit in resource-limited settings to provision of neuromodulatory devices to all patients with indications in contexts without resource limitations. Neurosurgeons must also take action to promote device effectiveness throughout the duration of care.

CONCLUSIONS

Weighing risks and benefits of providing neuromodulatory devices and assessing ability to remain responsible for the devices on the level of the individual patient indicate which patients are most likely to achieve benefit from these devices. Consideration of these factors on an axis of resource allocation will allow for optimal provision of neuromodulatory devices to patients in settings of varied resources. Neurosurgeons play a primary role in promoting the effectiveness of these devices.

Ketamine treatment for individuals with treatment-resistant depression: longitudinal qualitative interview study of patient experiences

BACKGROUND

Ketamine has recently received considerable attention regarding its antidepressant and anti-suicidal effects. Trials have generally focused on short-term effects of single intravenous infusions. Research on patient experiences is lacking.

AIMS

To investigate the experiences over time of individuals receiving ketamine treatment in a routine clinic, including impacts on mood and suicidality.

METHOD

Twelve fee-paying patients with treatment-resistant depression (6 females, 6 males, age 21-70 years; 11 reporting suicidality and 6 reporting self-harm) who were assessed as eligible for ketamine treatment participated in up to three semi-structured interviews: before treatment started, a few weeks into treatment and ≥2 months later. Data were analysed thematically.

RESULTS

Most participants hoped that ketamine would provide respite from their depression. Nearly all experienced improvement in mood following initial treatments, ranging from negligible to dramatic, and eight reported a reduction in suicidality. Improvements were transitory for most participants, although two experienced sustained consistent benefit and two had sustained but limited improvement. Some participants described hopelessness when treatment stopped working, paralleled by increased suicidal ideation for three participants. The transient nature and cost of treatment were problematic. Eleven participants experienced side-effects, which were significant for two participants. Suggestions for improving treatment included closer monitoring and adjunctive psychological therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Ketamine treatment was generally experienced as effective in improving mood and reducing suicidal ideation in the short term, but the lack of longer-term benefit was challenging for participants, as was treatment cost. Informed consent procedures should refer to the possibilities of relapse and associated increased hopelessness and suicidality.

Should DBS for Psychiatric Disorders be Considered a Form of Psychosurgery? Ethical and Legal Considerations

Deep brain stimulation (DBS), a surgical procedure involving the implantation of electrodes in the brain, has rekindled the medical community's interest in psychosurgery. Whereas many researchers argue DBS is substantially different from psychosurgery, we argue psychiatric DBS-though a much more precise and refined treatment than its predecessors-is nevertheless a form of psychosurgery, which raises both old and new ethical and legal concerns that have not been given proper attention. Learning from the ethical and regulatory failures of older forms of psychosurgery can help shed light on how to address the regulatory gaps that exist currently in DBS research. To show why it is important to address the current regulatory gaps within psychiatric DBS, we draw on the motivations underlying the regulation of earlier forms of psychosurgery in the US. We begin by providing a brief history of psychosurgery and electrical brain stimulation in the US. Against this backdrop, we introduce psychiatric DBS, exploring current research and ongoing clinical trials. We then draw out the ethical and regulatory similarities between earlier forms of psychosurgery and psychiatric DBS. As we will show, the factors that motivated strict regulation of earlier psychosurgical procedures mirror concerns with psychiatric DBS today. We offer three recommendations for psychiatric DBS regulation, which echo earlier motivations for regulating psychosurgery, along with new considerations that reflect the novel technologies used in DBS.

The re-emergence of psychiatric neurosurgery: insights from a cross-national study of newspaper and magazine coverage

BACKGROUND

Surgical approaches to treat psychiatric disorders have made a comeback. News media plays an essential role in exposing the public to trends in health care such as the re-emergence of therapeutic interventions in psychiatric neurosurgery that were set aside for decades, and in shaping attitudes and acceptance to them.

METHOD

We conducted an analysis of media articles covering all types of psychiatric neurosurgery published in Canada, USA, Germany, and Spain between the years 1960 and 2015. We applied both quantitative and qualitative methods to elucidate patterns of reporting for conditions, themes and tone, across geographic regions, time, and for type of intervention.

RESULTS

Coverage of psychiatric neurosurgery has surged since 2001 and is largely consistent across the countries examined. It focuses on depression and deep brain stimulation, and is explicit about historical context. The tone of coverage becomes more positive for Canada, USA and Spain over time; the tone of coverage from Germany remains cautious. Identity and privacy are among the few ethical and philosophical issues raised, notably in the German press.

CONCLUSIONS

The focused and optimistic attention to contemporary psychiatric neurosurgery in the media, but inattention to ethical issues, places an extra burden on functional neurosurgeons, psychiatrists, and other frontline health professionals to attend to queries from patients and policy makers about the full range of relevant emergent and emerging interventions and the mental health issues to which they may beneficially apply.

Deep brain stimulation for obsessive-compulsive disorder: Knowledge and concerns among psychiatrists, psychotherapists and patients

Background:

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is under investigation for severe obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) resistant to other therapies. The number of implants worldwide is slowly increasing. Therefore, it is of importance to explore knowledge and concerns of this novel treatment among patients and their psychiatric healthcare contacts. This information is relevant for scientific professionals working with clinical studies for DBS for this indication. Especially, for future study designs and the creation of information targeting healthcare professionals and patients. The aim of this study was to explore the knowledge and concerns toward DBS among patients with OCD, psychiatrists, and cognitive behavioral therapists.

Methods:

The study was conducted through web-based surveys for the aimed target groups –psychiatrist, patients, and cognitive behavioral therapists. The surveys contained questions regarding previous knowledge of DBS, source of knowledge, attitudes, and concerns towards the therapy.

Results:

The main source of information was from scientific sources among psychiatrists and psychotherapists. The patient's main source of information was the media. Common concerns among the groups included complications from surgery, anesthesia, stimulation side effects, and the novelty of the treatment. Specific concerns for the groups included; personality changes mentioned by patients and psychotherapists, and ethical concerns among psychiatrists.

Conclusion:

There are challenges for DBS in OCD as identified by the participants of this study; source and quality of information, efficacy, potential adverse effects, and eligibility. In all of which the current evidence base still is limited. A broad research agenda is needed for studies going forward.

Too similar, too different: the paradoxical dualism of psychiatric stigma

Challenges to psychiatric stigma fall between a rock and a hard place. Decreasing one prejudice may inadvertently increase another. Emphasising similarities between mental illness and ‘ordinary’ experience to escape the fear-related prejudices associated with the imagined ‘otherness’ of persons with mental illness risks conclusions that mental illness indicates moral weakness and the loss of any benefits of a medical model. An emphasis on illness and difference from normal experience risks a response of fear of the alien. Thus, a ‘likeness-based’ and ‘unlikeness-based’ conception of psychiatric stigma can lead to prejudices stemming from paradoxically opposing assumptions about mental illness. This may create a troubling impasse for anti-stigma campaigns.

Enrolling in deep brain stimulation research for depression: influences on potential subjects' decision making

BACKGROUND

Ethical concerns regarding early-phase clinical trials of DBS for treatment-resistant depression (TRD) include the possibility that participants' decisions to enroll might be motivated by unrealistic expectations of personal benefit or minimization of risks.

METHODS

Thematic analyses were conducted on a sample of 26 adults considering participation in two DBS trials. Influences on the decision making of these potential DBS trial participants were derived from responses to questions posed in the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Clinical Research (MacCAT-CR), a semi-structured interview designed to evaluate decisional capacity to consent to research.

RESULTS

Participants cited numerous factors as influential in their enrollment decisions, including perceived lack of other treatment options, desire to take initiative, beliefs about DBS as a novel treatment, possibility of DBS efficacy, hoped-for improvements, potential risks and disadvantages of DBS or clinical trial participation, and altruism. No individual expressed a set of motivations or influencing factors that suggested compromised decision-making capacity or diminished voluntariness of decision making.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that individuals make the decision to enroll in early-phase trials of DBS for TRD based on a number of complex and sometimes idiosyncratic considerations, and that the trials that were studied utilized sufficiently robust informed consent processes. These findings offer evidence that the emerging research area of DBS can be advanced in an ethically sound manner, provided that safeguards and processes for discussing trials with participants are carefully and proactively enacted.

Participants' Perceptions of Deep Brain Stimulation Research for Treatment-Resistant Depression: Risks, Benefits, and Therapeutic Misconception

BACKGROUND

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) for treatment-resistant depression (TRD) is the focus of great interest and numerous studies. Given the state of this research, the risks of DBS, the uncertainty of direct benefits, and the potential for therapeutic misconception (TM), examination of research participants' perspectives is critical to addressing concerns about the adequacy of consent among people with TRD.

METHODS

Among 31 participants considering DBS studies at two sites, self-report questionnaires were used to examine three dimensions of TM (eight true/false items). Additional Likert-scale items assessed perceptions of risks, potential benefits, and altruistic motivations.

RESULTS

Participants correctly identified the surgery itself as the riskiest study procedure, although only four participants rated the surgery as "high risk." Most participants rated the entire DBS study as "moderate" or lower risk. Participants rated the likelihood of others benefiting in the future more strongly than they did the likelihood of personal benefit. Participants held positive attitudes toward research, and were moderately altruistic. Nearly two-thirds of the 31 participants (64.5%) answered at least one of the true/false TM items incorrectly.

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals considering DBS studies for TRD demonstrated reasonable perceptions of risks and benefits, distinguished among procedural risks, and expressed hopes for personal benefit as well as altruism. Findings related to TM were mixed: Participants understood the experimental stage of DBS for depression and endorsed the possibility of no personal benefit, yet there was some evidence for TM. Although these findings are reassuring, investigators must nevertheless remain vigilant about identifying and addressing potential misconceptions.

Deep brain stimulation in the media: over-optimistic portrayals call for a new strategy involving journalists and scientists in ethical debates

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is optimistically portrayed in contemporary media. This already happened with psychosurgery during the first half of the twentieth century. The tendency of popular media to hype the benefits of DBS therapies, without equally highlighting risks, fosters public expectations also due to the lack of ethical analysis in the scientific literature. Media are not expected (and often not prepared) to raise the ethical issues which remain unaddressed by the scientific community. To obtain a more objective portrayal of DBS in the media, a deeper collaboration between the science community and journalists, and particularly specialized ones, must be promoted. Access to databases and articles, directly or through science media centers, has also been proven effective in increasing the quality of reporting. This article has three main objectives. Firstly, to explore the past media coverage of leukotomy, and to examine its widespread acceptance and the neglect of ethical issues in its depiction. Secondly, to describe how current enthusiastic coverage of DBS causes excessive optimism and neglect of ethical issues in patients. Thirdly, to discuss communication models and strategies to enhance media and science responsibility.