The Potential Harms of Speculative Neuroethics Research

A Patient-Centered Perspective on Changes in Personal Characteristics After Deep Brain Stimulation

Importance

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) results in improvements in motor function and quality of life in patients with Parkinson disease (PD), which might impact a patient's perception of valued personal characteristics. Prior studies investigating whether DBS causes unwanted changes to oneself or one's personality have methodological limitations that should be addressed.

Objective

To determine whether DBS is associated with changes in characteristics that patients with PD identify as personally meaningful.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study assessed changes in visual analog scale (VAS) ratings reflecting the extent to which patients with PD manifested individually identified personal characteristics before and 6 and 12 months after DBS at a large academic medical center from February 21, 2018, to December 9, 2021. The VAS findings were tailored to reflect the top 3 individually identified personal characteristics the patient most feared losing. The VASs were scored from 0 to 10, with 0 representing the least and 10 the most extreme manifestation of the trait. Change scores were examined at the individual level. Content analysis was used to code the qualitative data. Qualitative and quantitative analyses were performed from January 12, 2019 (initial qualitative coding), to December 15, 2023.

Exposure

Deep brain stimulation.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome variable was the mean VAS score for the top 3 personal characteristics. The secondary outcome was the incidence of meaningful changes on the patients' top 3 characteristics at the individual level.

Results

Fifty-two of 54 dyads of patients with PD and their care partners (96.3%) were recruited from a consecutive series approved for DBS (36 patients [69.2%] were male and 45 care partners [86.5%] were female; mean [SD] age of patients, 61.98 [8.55] years). Two patients and 1 care partner were lost to follow-up. Increases in the mean VAS score (indicative of greater manifestation of [ie, positive changes in] specific characteristics) were apparent following DBS for ratings of both the patients (Wald χ2 = 16.104; P < .001) and care partners (Wald χ2 = 6.746; P < .001) over time. The slopes of the changes for both the patient and care partners were correlated, indicating agreement in observed changes over time. The individual level analyses indicated that scores for most patients and care partners remained the same or increased.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study, participants reported greater (more positive) manifestations of individually identified, valued characteristics after DBS. These findings may be relevant to informing decision-making for patients with advanced PD who are considering DBS.

Public Perceptions of Neurotechnologies Used to Target Mood, Memory, and Motor Symptoms

Background

Advances in the development of neurotechnologies have the potential to revolutionize treatment of brain-based conditions. However, a critical concern revolves around the willingness of the public to embrace these technologies, especially considering the tumultuous histories of certain neurosurgical interventions. Therefore, examining public attitudes is paramount to uncovering potential barriers to adoption ensuring ethically sound innovation.

Methods

In the present study, we investigate public attitudes towards the use of four neurotechnologies (within-subjects conditions): deep brain stimulation (DBS), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), pills, and MRI-guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS) as potential treatments to a person experiencing either mood, memory, or motor symptoms (between-subjects conditions). US-based participants (N=1052; stratified to be nationally representative based on sex, race, age) were asked about their perceptions of risk, benefit, invasiveness, acceptability, perceived change to the person, and personal interest in using these neurotechnologies for symptom alleviation.

Results

Descriptive results indicate variability between technologies that the U.S. public is willing to consider if experiencing severe mood, memory, or motor symptoms. The main effect of neurotechnology revealed DBS was viewed as the most invasive and risky treatment and was perceived to lead to the greatest change to who someone is as a person. DBS was also viewed as least likely to be personally used and least acceptable for use by others. When examining the main effects of symptomatology, we found that all forms of neuromodulation were perceived as significantly more beneficial, acceptable, and likely to be used by participants for motor symptoms, followed by memory symptoms, and lastly mood symptoms. Neuromodulation (averaging across neurotechnologies) was perceived as significantly riskier, more invasive, and leading to a greater change to person for mood versus motor symptoms; however, memory and motor symptoms were perceived similarly with respect to risk, invasiveness, and change to person.

Conclusion

These results suggest that the public views neuromodulatory approaches that require surgery (i.e., DBS and MRgFUS) as riskier, more invasive, and less acceptable than those that do not. Further, findings suggest individuals may be more reluctant to alter or treat psychological symptoms with neuromodulation compared to physical symptoms.

Identity Theft, Deep Brain Stimulation, and the Primacy of Post-trial Obligations

Patient narratives from two investigational deep brain stimulation trials for traumatic brain injury and obsessive-compulsive disorder reveal that injury and illness rob individuals of personal identity and that neuromodulation can restore it. The early success of these interventions makes a compelling case for continued post-trial access to these technologies. Given the centrality of personal identity to respect for persons, a failure to provide continued access can be understood to represent a metaphorical identity theft. Such a loss recapitulates the pain of an individual's initial injury or illness and becomes especially tragic because it could be prevented by robust policy. A failure to fulfill this normative obligation constitutes a breach of disability law, which would view post-trial access as a means to achieve social reintegration through this neurotechnological accommodation.