Deep brain stimulation and revising the Mental Health Act: the case for intervention-specific safeguards

International Regulatory Standards for the Qualitative Measurement of Deep Brain Stimulation in Clinical Research

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) has progressed to become a promising treatment modality for neurologic and psychiatric disorders like epilepsy and major depressive disorder due to its growing personalization. Despite evidence pointing to the benefits of DBS if tested on these personalized qualitative metrics, rather than randomized-control trial quantitative standards, the evaluation of these novel devices appears to be based on the latter. This study surveyed the presence of this trend in the national regulatory guidelines of the prominent DBS researching countries. It was found that two governing bodies, in the European Union and Australia, acknowledged the option for qualitative measures. These findings support further development of national regulatory guidelines, so the neuroscientific community developing these neurotechnologies can better understand the impact their treatments have on patients.

Ethical examination of deep brain stimulation's 'last resort' status

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) interventions are novel devices being investigated for the management of severe treatment-resistant psychiatric illnesses. These interventions require the invasive implantation of high-frequency neurostimulatory probes intracranially aiming to provide symptom relief in treatment-resistant disorders including obsessive-compulsive disorder and anorexia nervosa. In the scientific literature, these neurostimulatory interventions are commonly described as reversible and to be used as a last resort option for psychiatric patients. However, the 'last resort' status of these interventions is rarely expanded upon. Contrastingly, usages of DBS devices for neurological symptoms (eg, Parkinson's disease, epilepsy or dystonia) have paved the way for established safety and efficacy standards when used earlier in a disease's timeline. As DBS treatments for these neurological diseases progress to have earlier indications, there is a parallel ethical concern that early implementation may one day become prescribed for psychiatric illnesses. The purpose of this article is to build off contemporary understandings of reversible neurostimulatory interventions to examine and provide clarifications on the 'last resort' status of DBS to better address its ethically charged use in psychiatric neurosurgery. To do this, evaluative differences between DBS treatments will be discussed to demonstrate how patient autonomy would be a paramount guiding principle when one day implementing these devices at various points along a psychiatric disease's timeline. In presenting the clarification of 'last resort' status, the ethical tensions of early DBS interventions will be better understood to assist in providing psychiatric patients with more quality of life years in line with their values.

Evidence-Based Neuroethics, Deep Brain Stimulation and Personality - Deflating, but not Bursting, the Bubble

Gilbert et al. have raised important questions about the empirical grounding of neuroethical analyses of the apparent phenomenon of Deep Brain Stimulation 'causing' personality changes. In this paper, we consider how to make neuroethical claims appropriately calibrated to existing evidence, and the role that philosophical neuroethics has to play in this enterprise of 'evidence-based neuroethics'. In the first half of the paper, we begin by highlighting the challenges we face in investigating changes to PIAAAS following DBS, explaining how different trial designs may be of different degrees of utility, depending on how changes to PIAAAS following DBS are manifested. In particular, we suggest that the trial designs Gilbert et al. call for may not be able to tell us whether or not DBS directly causes changes to personality. However, we suggest that this is not the most significant question about this phenomenon; the most significant question is whether these changes should matter morally, however they are caused. We go on to suggest that neuroethical analyses of novel neuro-interventions should be carried out in accordance with the levels of evidence hierarchy outlined by the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM), and explain different ways in which neuroethical analyses of changes to PIAAAS can be evidence-based on this framework. In the second half of the paper, we explain how philosophical neuroethics can play an important role in contributing to mechanism-based reasoning about potential effects on PIAAAS following DBS, a form of evidence that is also incorporated into the CEBM levels of evidence hierarchy.