Ethical issues in neurology

David Gloss MD

General Neurology

Updated 02.10.2024
Released 08.02.2017
Expires For CME 02.10.2027

Ethical issues in neurology

Author: David Gloss MD

See Contributor Disclosures

Editor: Peter J Koehler MD PhD

Ethical issues in neurology

In This Article

Quick Link

Introduction

Overview

Neuroethics is a distinct content field concerned with “the ethics of neuroscience and the neuroscience of ethics.” Neuroethics focuses on the ethics of changing the nervous system when conducting clinical research or care (52), as well as neurotechnology research and application. It includes social and policy issues associated with their use. It is particularly relevant to clinical specialties like neurology, neurologic surgery, and neuropsychology. Neuroethics is a young and rapidly growing field that has substantially impacted scientific research and clinical practice. Neuroethics has been emphasized by Barack Obama’s Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues and has become an integral part of major national-level funded neuroscience initiatives across the globe. It is even considered an emerging potential career path among neurologists (67).

Key points

	• The modern association of personhood and identity with the mind and brain distinguishes neuroethics from other subjects of bioethical inquiry.
	• Neuroethics focuses on the ethics of neurotechnology research and application as well as social and policy issues associated with their use.
	• As neuroscience continues to evolve and the nature of possible clinical interventions changes, neurologists must begin to consider the implications of interventions to the brain on personhood and identity, autonomy and agency, as well as for informed consent.

Issues in clinical neuroethics

Personhood and identity. The modern association of personhood and identity with the mind and brain distinguishes neuroethics from other subjects of bioethical inquiry (66; 63). Localizing the essential self to the brain, termed “brainhood,” has contributed to emphasis on neuroscientific research and underscored the necessity of neuroethics. For the purposes of this abbreviated introduction, we present the functional definition of personhood as the essential characteristic or set of characteristics that give an agent moral status. These attributes are typically intimately related to or dependent on cognitive capacities. However, diverse perspectives remain regarding the appropriateness of cognition as the seat of personhood (59; 64; 18; 10). Because of the intimate relationship between brain, mind, and identity, there are numerous reports of patients feeling or appearing fundamentally changed—seemingly a different person—after injury to or medical intervention with the brain, be it surgical or pharmacological (40; 08; 41; 37).

Neurodiversity and inclusivity. Because the brain is so intimately tied to identity, a social justice movement has challenged notions of which brains and their resultant identities are considered “normal” and socially acceptable. Neurodiversity explores how both society and the medical institution could recognize and accept the inherent differences in cognitive and neurologic functioning rather than treating or intervening with characteristic traits of individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, ADHD/ADD, and bipolarity (06). Neurodiversity advocates argue that by pathologizing neurologic diversity, neuroscience has unnecessarily medicalized natural developmental variance in human cognition (32; 34). To be clear, not all neurodiversity advocates suggest that having autism spectrum disorder, for example, is not distressing and does not require accommodations for these differences. Rather, advocates suggest that the core features of autism spectrum disorder are identity-forming, and patients may want assistance that works with rather than against their conditions to enable them to live fulfilling lives.

Notes on person-first language. Utilizing appropriate semantics for the person-disease relationship can be challenging in considered medical discourse and in the context of neurodiversity. Currently, debate persists about the use of person-first language (person with autism vs. autistic person) for neurologic and psychological conditions. It is important to remain cognizant of the order of words when speaking with or about patients, as many greatly value the distinction between person-first and condition-first language. Preferences tend to correlate with the individual’s understanding of identity—that is, whether the condition is integral to their person or something from which distance is sought (57).

Autonomy and agency. One of the rights engendered by personhood is respect for one’s autonomy, or one’s capacity for self-determination. One who can act autonomously (ie, able to demonstrate reasoning, deliberating, and independent choosing free from undue external influence) is considered an autonomous agent with decision-making capacity (17; 10). In Western biomedicine, the brain has become understood as the executor of all autonomous functions (62). In the clinical setting, autonomy most often manifests in acknowledging patients’ rights to decide which healthcare interventions they will and will not receive. In the future, the very nature of undue influence may change with developing neurotechnological capabilities to “read and write” the brain (42; 01).

Informed consent. Informed consent was developed to recognize the right to autonomous choice and protect patients and research subjects from harm (09). In research trials, informed consent is often problematic. Patients are requested to sign complicated documents that frequently fail to facilitate truly informed consent (29). To provide consent to a procedure, an individual must be deemed to have decision-making capacity or the cognitive ability to understand, make, and indicate a choice between alternatives. A surrogate may make choices for patients who have temporarily or permanently lost decision-making capacity. Acquired injury, neurodegeneration, or neurotechnological intervention can all impact an individual’s capacity to consent.

Informed decision-making requires effective communication of information such as the risks of proposed treatment, alternative options (including abstaining from treatment), as well as the opportunity to ask and receive answers to clarifying questions. However, enabling an informed decision becomes particularly complex in brain interventions that may unpredictably challenge the capacity to consent or even affect qualities and temperaments associated with identity. Challenges to traditional assumptions about capacity have grown from new developments in detecting covert awareness in patients thought to be in a vegetative or minimally conscious state, which will be discussed later in this article (22).

Clinical applications

The body of this article highlights important neuroethical issues that arise with neurologic disorders and interventions throughout the lifespan while also looking into issues likely to present in the near future. Some of these topics are familiar, whereas others are unprecedented, surfacing in tandem with neuroscientific innovation.

Acquired injury. With acquired injuries, such as stroke or traumatic brain injury, physicians and surrogates must contend with patients’ compromised capacity to make autonomous decisions due to cognitive dysfunction. For patients retaining consciousness, the capacity to make a decision is assessed based on the individual’s ability to (1) appreciate the current situation and the consequences of the decision, (2) understand treatment options and their outcomes, (3) engage in reasoning about the alternatives, and (4) communicate a decision (04). In cases of severe injury, determinations of capacity may be heavily influenced by the technology used for assessment. For example, imaging studies have indicated that some patients in the locked-in state or with disorders of consciousness may be able to indicate preferences by answering yes-no questions mediated by fMRI (44; 14). Capacity may further vary on a temporal basis and may exist for some choices but not others; the gravity of the decision often determines the degree to which one must demonstrate meaningful choice.

Diagnostic uncertainty has long been an inescapable challenge for neurologists identifying disorders of consciousness and may further complicate treatment decisions. However, developments in neuroimaging have increased the clinical ability to distinguish between the vegetative state and the minimally conscious state, enabling more accurate diagnoses and prognoses (23; 45). Currently, functional MRI and diffusion tensor imaging may together provide the most informative and accessible imaging techniques to distinguish between the vegetative state and the minimally conscious state (26). Although EEG is a powerful and practical tool for the assessment of brain function, it may not be prognostic after cardiac arrest. The TELSTAR trial showed that treating concerning EEG patterns after cardiac arrest did not alter outcomes (54). As neuroimaging technologies advance and understanding of neurologic correlates of consciousness increases, the ability to accurately diagnose and prognosticate for patients with disorders of consciousness will likely improve.

Following best efforts in diagnosis and prognostication, a plan of care must be elected. Although many understand the treatment options for patients with severe disorders of consciousness to be diametric extremes (ie, prolonged life-sustaining treatment with little hope of recovery or withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment leading to death), others have argued for the moral obligation to improve neurorehabilitation efforts and promote the use of neuroprosthetics for this population. Neuroprosthetic technologies like deep brain stimulation may restore functional communication—even if only to the level of assent—to patients with disorders of consciousness and enable them to participate in rehabilitation research and, one day, treatment decision-making (20; 23; 21).

End of life and brain death. Significant ethical challenges are brought about by deep and continuous sedation until death (46). This approach was codified into French law in 2016, and the concept has spread to other places. The French law is clear because it gives specific circumstances for application.

Brain death arose from the paradigmatic report “A Definition of Irreversible Coma” (Anonymous 1968) in response to advancements in resuscitation and critical care, the physiology of consciousness, and increasing concern about medically futile interventions (16). Debate continues as to whether brain death can be equated to biological death or whether perhaps the term serves more as a useful “legal fiction” to support organ donation, conserve costs on nonbeneficial treatment, or diminish suffering at the end stages of life (61). Even so, brain death is legally recognized in all 50 U.S. states as equivalent to death determined by cardiorespiratory criteria. Because the term “brain death” itself may be problematic in its implication that there is more than one kind of death, “death by neurologic criteria” should be used (49). Determination of death by neurologic criteria requires known occurrence of acute and irreversible insult to the central nervous system resulting in the “irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brainstem” (48). Current opinion holds brain death to be both biologically and philosophically valid, with some states providing accommodation periods for families or recognition of religious exemptions to death by neurologic criteria (49; 11).

Determination of death by neurologic criteria is an inconsistent protocol across the nation, and even hospital practices of addressing whether or not families object to neurologic determinations of death are heterogeneous (65; 39; 38). An AAN guideline on this issue will hopefully address the heterogeneity of hospital practices (30). Just as technologies were developed to allow for better organ donation, which came in tandem with the Uniform Determination of Death Act, it may become the case that new and sure to be controversial radical tissue preservation or reanimation techniques require a revision of existing brain death criteria and protocols (50).

Predictive testing. A goal of neurology and neuroscience research has been to increase early recognition of neurologic diseases and disorders through preclinical and predictive tests. In neurology, disease-modifying interventions are unique in that they require patients and providers to consider not only the condition the patient is experiencing but also who the patient may become as a result of disease progression or intervention. Recommendations for the assessment of capacity, surrogate decision-making, and seeking assent and dissent are pertinent in the context of both the progressive loss of cognitive function due to neurodegeneration and the incomplete autonomy of children and adolescents with neurologic disorders.

For conditions like autism spectrum disorder, early identification and intervention present unmatched opportunities for children to build critical skills before autistic characteristics fully emerge (55). Preclinical testing in other areas is aimed at advancing the understanding of neurologic and psychological conditions that currently have limited interventions, like Alzheimer disease and psychosis (05; 12). Although preclinical research certainly has laudable aims of improving identification and appropriate intervention for developing disease-modifying therapies, certain risks are inherent and should not be overlooked.

The communication of risks to patients may itself be problematic. Medical researchers may downplay or not recognize the nonbiological risks faced by a patient participating in predictive or prodromal testing. The endeavor to communicate potential harm is further complicated by the diversity of presentations and uncertainty surrounding the etiology and diagnosis of many neurologic disorders (68). Even when best efforts are made to explain risks, the participant may not fully understand the nature of the harms due to pervasive issues of scientific and numerical illiteracy. For example, it may be difficult for the research subject to understand how brain data may be uniquely identifiable and may, in the future, expose them to risks that are currently unforeseeable. Further, it is unclear how useful such assessments will be in the near and intermediate term as there currently are no “cures” for autism spectrum disorder, schizophrenia, or dementia. Essentially, the provider must strive to communicate risks as honestly as possible by tailoring the discussion to the method the subject best understands (69). “Risk” may not even be the most appropriate word choice, as neurodiversity advocates would argue that the “risk for developing” autism might better be described as a natural human variant not requiring “cures” or even “treatment.” As we are primarily in the early and research stages of these technologies, the development of appropriate semantics and strategies will need to be integrated into research.

Privacy is of great concern for individuals participating in preclinical research for neurologic disorders. Neurologic and psychiatric conditions being studied (such as schizophrenia or Alzheimer disease) are often stigmatized or may engender discrimination by future employers or insurers. Part of that discrimination from such a preclinical assessment likely arises from an expectation of diminished capacity for decision-making and autonomy. Currently, no legal antidiscrimination protections for nongenetic information exist, nor do privacy laws prevent authorized parties like potential employers from viewing research information that is part of the medical record (PPACA 42 U.S.C. § 300gg-4). Thus, research subjects could be vulnerable to financial and health penalties should their participation be disclosed or the confidentiality of their results breached. Compounding this issue is the uncertainty inherent in preclinically obtained results. Diagnostic error is not uncommon, and the high or unknown rates of false positives in experimental preclinical or prodromal tests may unfairly subject participants to discriminatory effects, regardless of test validity (47).

Diagnostic uncertainty in predictive testing may also jeopardize a child’s “right to an open future,” that is, the full range of the child’s future options and ability to meaningfully decide amongst them, may be precluded by parental decisions enacted before full development of the child’s autonomy (19; 43). For example, a parent electing predictive testing that indicates her child has autism spectrum disorder may enroll the child in a targeted academic program. This choice may be beneficial in providing appropriate skills if the diagnosis is correct, but in instances of false positives, it may limit the full range of choices and interactions that would have otherwise been available to the child.

Enhancement and cosmetic neurology. Neurotechnologies and neuropharmaceuticals are now being used not only for restorative or therapeutic purposes but also with the intent to optimize or enhance human neurologic functioning. Cognitive enhancement has long been sought by humans through physical, chemical, and technological means, but modern neurology is changing the degree to which these modifications may manifest (62).

Stimulation devices like deep brain stimulation and transcranial direct-current stimulation are both under study for their ability to augment certain cognitive abilities in healthy subjects. In particular, preliminary studies explored deep brain stimulation’s promise in memory enhancement, whereas transcranial direct-current stimulation data indicate improvements in attention, learning, and memory (15; 58). However, a study suggested no cognitive enhancement effects in healthy populations (03). Currently, deep brain stimulation remains relegated to physician-administered clinical trials due to the invasive nature of implantation, whereas transcranial direct-current stimulation has become a popular “DIY” method of cognitive enhancement and, thus, remains relatively unregulated (33). Although the goal of improved cognition is not outright unethical, there remains insufficient evidence about the effects of neurostimulation on brain health, identity, and self for endorsement of nontherapeutic application by medical professionals outside of the research setting.

Similarly, there has been increasing discourse surrounding the practice of pharmaceutical cognitive enhancement, in which nootropics and other stimulant drugs are employed to improve focus, motivation, attention, recall, and reaction time (07; 36). These practices predominantly arise in university student and professional populations (including physicians and scientists) with the aim of improving performance (24). Though nonprescription use of these drugs is illegal, the practice is not uncommon. Surveys suggest between 1% and 20% prevalence among healthy subjects (25). Although empirical evidence of the realized cognitive effects is currently limited, there are strong contraindications for the practice due to drug safety and side effects.

Further, ethical concerns about just access and individual autonomy must be addressed. The illicit nature of pharmacological cognitive enhancement means obtaining the drugs is expensive and may unfairly privilege those with preexisting economic advantages or increase disparities in cognitive capacity between those who demonstrate clinical need for a prescription and those simply wishing to gain an advantage. Some physicians already experience or have prescribed interventions for enhancement (31); the term “cosmetic neurology” has been used to describe a practice wherein neurologists may be asked to act more as “quality of life consultants” offering enhancements rather than treatments (13). Critiques of cognitive enhancement also extend beyond concerns of unknown harms, legality, fairness, and equity; some have argued that cognitive enhancement is an affront to the authenticity of one’s identity and a violation of nature’s gifts (35). Others fear that there will be implicit coercion to use cognitive enhancement to keep pace with a culture that keeps moving the goalpost of productivity.

Brain stimulation and identity. Brain interfacing technologies like deep brain stimulation are now being used experimentally for a host of neuropsychiatric disorders and as FDA-approved therapy for Parkinson disease, essential tremor, epilepsy, dystonia, and obsessive-compulsive disorder (28). In experimental and therapeutic contexts, deep brain stimulation and other brain-interfacing devices may pose unique threats to patients’ identity and privacy. Following patient reports about feeling distance from or a sense of strangeness with themselves after deep brain stimulation implantation and family reports of no longer “knowing” the patient when the device is turned on, many scholars expressed unease with the philosophical implications of a disease-modifying intervention that poses a significant threat to personal identity (27; 56; 41). These risks are poorly understood and may be difficult to communicate to patients during informed consent procedures. Although personality and mood alterations may enable deep brain stimulation to substantially contribute to neuroscientific and philosophical understanding about the nature and locus of identity and self-constituting attributes, debate persists about the acceptability of such unintended effects in the context of disease-modifying interventions. Deep brain stimulation and other novel brain-interfacing devices also may threaten patient or participant privacy, as neural data receive little protection under current policy (60).

References

01: Amano K, Shibata K, Kawato M, Sasaki Y, Watanabe T. Learning to associate orientation with color in early visual areas by associative decoded fMRI neurofeedback. Curr Biol 2016;26(14):1861-6. PMID 27374335
02: Anonymous. Landmark article Aug 5, 1968: A definition of irreversible coma. Report of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School to examine the definition of brain death. JAMA 1984;252(5):677-9. PMID 6376839
03: Antal A, Keeser D, Priori A, Padberg F, Nitsche MA. Conceptual and procedural shortcomings of the systematic review "Evidence That Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) Generates Little-to-no Reliable Neurophysiologic Effect Beyond MEP Amplitude Modulation in Healthy Human Subjects: A Systematic Review" by Horvath and co-workers. Brain Stimul 2015;8(4):846-9. PMID 26143023
04: Appelbaum PS. Clinical practice. Assessment of patients' competence to consent to treatment. N Engl J Med 2007;357(18):1834-40. PMID 17978292
05: Arias JJ, Karlawish J. Confidentiality in preclinical Alzheimer disease studies: when research and medical records meet. Neurology 2014;82(8):725-9. PMID 24477112
06: Armstrong T. The power of neurodiversity: unleashing the advantages of your differently wired brain. Da Capo Press, 2011.
07: Bagot KS, Kaminer Y. Efficacy of stimulants for cognitive enhancement in non-attention deficit hyperactivity disorder youth: a systematic review. Addiction 2014;109(4):547-57. PMID 24749160
08: Baylis F. "I am who I am": on the perceived threats to personal identity from deep brain stimulation. Neuroethics 2013;6:513-26. PMID 24273621
09: Beauchamp TL. Informed consent: its history, meaning, and present challenges. Camb Q Healthc Ethics 2011;20(4):515-23. PMID 21843382
10: Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of biomedical ethics. 7th edition. In: Childress JF, editor. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013.
11: Burkle CM, Pope TM. Brain death: legal obligations and the courts. Semin Neurol 2015;35(2):174-9. PMID 25839727
12: Cannon TD, Yu C, Addington J, et al. An individualized risk calculator for research in prodromal psychosis. Am J Psychiatry 2016;173(10):980-8. PMID 27363508
13: Chatterjee A. Cosmetic neurology: the controversy over enhancing movement, mentation, and mood. Neurology 2004;63(6):968-74. PMID 15452285
14: Chaudhary U, Xia B, Silvoni S, Cohen LG, Birbaumer N. Brain-computer interface-based communication in the completely locked-in state. PLoS Biol 2017;15(1):e1002593. PMID 28141803
15: Coffman BA, Clark VP, Parasuraman R. Battery powered thought: enhancement of attention, learning, and memory in healthy adults using transcranial direct current stimulation. Neuroimage 2014;85 Pt 3:895-908. PMID 23933040
16: De Georgia MA. History of brain death as death: 1968 to the present. J Crit Care 2014;29(4):673-8. PMID 24930367
17: Faden RR, Beauchamp TL, King NM. History and theory of informed consent. Cary: Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 1986.
18: Farah MJ, Heberlein AS. Personhood and neuroscience: naturalizing or nihilating? Am J Bioeth 2007;7(1):37-48. PMID 17366164
19: Feinberg J. The Child’s Right to an Open Future. In Whose Child? In: Aiken W, LaFallette H, editors. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield, 1980:124-53.
20: Fins JJ. Disorders of consciousness and disordered care: families, caregivers, and narratives of necessity. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2013;94(10):1934-9. PMID 23770277
21: Fins JJ. Neuroethics and Disorders of Consciousness: Discerning Brain States in Clinical Practice and Research. AMA J Ethics 2016;18(12):1182-91. PMID 28009244
22: Fins JJ, Illes J, Bernat JL, Hirsch J, Laureys S, Murphy E. Neuroimaging and disorders of consciousness: envisioning an ethical research agenda. Am J Bioeth 2008;8(9):3-12. PMID 18853371
23: Fins JJ. Rights come to mind: brain injury, ethics, and the struggle for consciousness: Cambridge University Press, 2015.
24: Franke AG, Bagusat C, Dietz P, et al. Use of illicit and prescription drugs for cognitive or mood enhancement among surgeons. BMC Med 2013;11:102. PMID 23570256
25: Franke AG, Bagusat C, Rust S, Engel A, Lieb K. Substances used and prevalence rates of pharmacological cognitive enhancement among healthy subjects. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 2014;264 Suppl 1:S83-90. PMID 25214391
26: Giacino JT, Fins JJ, Laureys S, Schiff ND. Disorders of consciousness after acquired brain injury: the state of the science. Nat Rev Neurol 2014;10(2):99-114. PMID 24468878
27: Glannon W. Stimulating brains, altering minds. J Med Ethics 2009;35(5):289-92. PMID 19407032
28: Graat I, Figee M, Denys D. The application of deep brain stimulation in the treatment of psychiatric disorders. Int Rev Psychiatry 2017;29(2):178-90. PMID 28523977
29: Grant SC. Informed consent-we can and should do better. JAMA Netw Open 2021;4(4):e2110848. PMID 33909058
30: Greer DM, Kirschen MP, Lewis A, et al. Pediatric and adult brain death/death by neuorlogic criteria consensus guideline. Neurology 2023;101:1112-32. PMID 38175986
31: Hotze TD, Shah K, Anderson EE, Wynia MK. "Doctor, would you prescribe a pill to help me… ?" a national survey of physicians on using medicine for human enhancement. Am J Bioeth 2011;11(1):3-13. PMID 21240795
32: Jaarsma P, Welin S. Autism as a natural human variation: reflections on the claims of the neurodiversity movement. Health Care Anal 2012;20(1):20-30. PMID 21311979
33: Jwa A. Early adopters of the magical thinking cap: a study on do-it-yourself (DIY) transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) user community. J Law Biosci 2015;2(2):292-335. PMID 27774197
34: Kapp SK, Gillespie-Lynch K, Sherman LE, Hutman T. Deficit, difference, or both? Autism and neurodiversity. Dev Psychol 2013;49(1):59-71. PMID 22545843
35: Kass LR. Beyond therapy: biotechnology and the pursuit of human improvement. President’s Council on Bioethics. Washington, D.C., January 2003. Available at: https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcbe/background/kasspaper.html
36: Kjærsgaard T. Enhancing motivation by use of prescription stimulants: the ethics of motivation enhancement. AJOB Neuroscience 2015;6(1):4-10.
37: Klein E, Brown T, Sample M, Truitt AR, Goering S. Engineering the brain: ethical issues and the introduction of neural devices. Hastings Cent Rep 2015;45(6):26-35. PMID 26556144
38: Lewis A, Greer D. Current controversies in brain death determination. Nat Rev Neurol 2017;13(8):505-9. PMID 28548107
39: Lewis A, Varelas P, Greer D. Prolonging support after brain death: when families ask for more. Neurocrit Care 2016;24(3):481-7. PMID 26490777
40: Lipsman N, Zener R, Bernstein M. Personal identity, enhancement and neurosurgery: a qualitative study in applied neuroethics. Bioethics 2009;23(6):375-83. PMID 19527265
41: Lipsman N, Glannon W. Brain, mind and machine: what are the implications of deep brain stimulation for perceptions of personal identity, agency and free will? Bioethics 2013;27(9):465-70. PMID 22681593
42: Liu X, Ramirez S, Tonegawa S. Inception of a false memory by optogenetic manipulation of a hippocampal memory engram. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2013;369(1633):20130142. PMID 24298144
43: Millum J. The foundation of the child’s right to an open future. J Soc Philos 2014;45(4):522-38. PMID 25558116
44: Monti MM, Vanhaudenhuyse A, Coleman MR, et al. Willful modulation of brain activity in disorders of consciousness. N Engl J Med 2010;362(7):579-89. PMID 20130250
45: Owen AM. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging and electroencephalography to detect consciousness after severe brain injury. Handb Clin Neurol 2015;127:277-93. PMID 25702223
46: Perrigault PF, Greco F. Ethical issues in neurocritical care. Rev Neurol (Paris) 2022;178(1-2):57-63. PMID 34998525
47: Peterson A, Cruse D, Naci L, Weijer C, Owen AM. Risk, diagnostic error, and the clinical science of consciousness. Neuroimage Clin 2015;7:588-97. PMID 25844313
48: President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Defining death: medical, legal and ethical issues in the determination of death. Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1982.
49: President’s Council on Bioethics. Controversies in the determination of death: a white paper by the President’s Council on Bioethics. Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 2008. Available at: https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcbe/reports/death/
50: Pulla P. Experiment to raise the dead blocked in India. Science, November 14, 2016. Available at: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/11/experiment-raise-dead-blocked-india
51: Racine E. Pragmatic neuroethics: improving treatment and understanding of the mind-brain. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2010.
52: Ramos KM, Grady C, Greely HT, et al. The NIH BRAIN Initiative: integrating neuroethics and neuroscience. Neuron 2019;101(3):394-8. PMID 30731065
53: Roskies A. Neuroethics for the new millenium. Neuron 2002;35(1):21-3. PMID 12123605
54: Ruijter BJ, Keijzer HM, Tjepkema-Cloostermans MC, et al. Treating rhythmic and periodic EEG patterns in comatose survivors of cardiac arrest. NEJM 2022;386:724-34. PMID 35196426
55: Sarrett JC, Rommelfanger KS. Commentary: attention to eyes is present but in decline in 2-6-month-old infants later diagnosed with autism. Front Public Health 2015;3:272. PMID 26697420
56: Schermer M. Ethical issues in deep brain stimulation. Front Integr Neurosci 2011;5:17. PMID 21625629
57: Sinclair J. Why I dislike “Person First” language. Autonomy Crit J Interdisciplin Autism Stud 2013;1(2):1-2.
58: Suthana N, Fried I. Deep brain stimulation for enhancement of learning and memory. Neuroimage 2014;85 Pt 3:996-1002. PMID 23921099
59: Tooley M. Abortion and infanticide. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983.
60: Trimper JB, Wolpe PR, Rommelfanger KS. When “I” becomes “We”: ethical implications of emerging brain-to-brain interfacing technologies. Front Neuroeng 2014;7:4. PMID 24575002
61: Truog RD, Miller FG. The meaning of brain death: a different view. JAMA Intern Med 2014;174(8):1215-6. PMID 24911444
62: United States Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. Gray matters: integrative approaches for neuroscience, ethics, and society. Washington, D.C.: Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, 2014.
63: Vidal F. Brainhood, anthropological figure of modernity. Hist Human Sci 2009;22(1):5-36. PMID 19860032
64: Warren M. Moral status obligations to persons and other living things. Inc NetLibrary, editor. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997.
65: Wijdicks EF, Varelas PN, Gronseth GS, Greer DM, American Academy of Neurology. Evidence-based guideline update: determining brain death in adults: report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology 2010;74(23):1911-8. PMID 20530327
66: Wolpe PR. Neuroethics. Encyclopedia of Bioethics. In: Post SG, editor. New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 2004:1894-8.
67: Young MJ, Bernat JL. Emerging specialties in neurology: neuroethics. Neurology 2022;98 505-8. PMID 8967332
68: Yudell M, Tabor HK, Dawson G, Rossi J, Newschaffer C, Working Group in Autism Risk Communication and Ethics. Priorities for autism spectrum disorder risk communication and ethics. Autism 2013;17(6):701-22. PMID 22917844
69: Zipkin DA, Umscheid CA, Keating NL, et al. Evidence-based risk communication: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2014;161(4):270-80. PMID 25133362

Contributors

All contributors' financial relationships have been reviewed and mitigated to ensure that this and every other article is free from commercial bias.

Author

David Gloss MD

Dr. Gloss of The NeuroMedical Center in Baton Rouge has no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
See Profile

Editor

Peter J Koehler MD PhD

Dr. Koehler of Maastricht University has no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
See Profile

Former Authors

Karen S Rommelfanger PhD
Kelsey Drewry MA
James G Greene MD PhD
Thomas Cochrane MD MBA and Benjamin Tolchin MD MS

This is an article preview.
Start a Free Account
to access the full version.

Nearly 3,000 illustrations, including video clips of neurologic disorders.
Every article is reviewed by our esteemed Editorial Board for accuracy and currency.
Full spectrum of neurology in 1,200 comprehensive articles.
Listen to MedLink on the go with Audio versions of each article.

Questions or Comment?

MedLink®, LLC

3525 Del Mar Heights Rd, Ste 304
San Diego, CA 92130-2122

Toll Free (U.S. + Canada): 800-452-2400

US Number: +1-619-640-4660

Support: service@medlink.com

Editor: editor@medlink.com

ISSN: 2831-9125

Ethical issues in neurology

Also Relevant

Brain death/death by neurologic criteria
Clinical trials in neurology
Digital neurology
Disorders of consciousness
Neurogenetics and genetic and genomic testing
- Traumatic intracerebral hemorrhage

Clinical Categories

General Neurology

Ethical issues in neurology

Ethical issues in neurology

Introduction

Overview

Key points

Issues in clinical neuroethics

Clinical applications

Conclusion

References

Contributors

Author

Editor

Former Authors

This is an article preview.
Start a Free Account
to access the full version.

Questions or Comment?

Also in This Category

Brain death/death by neurologic criteria

Hepatic encephalopathy

Bowel dysfunction in neurologic disorders

Coma due to primary brainstem and diencephalic lesions

Transient visual loss

Neuroimaging in acute stroke

Sports activities: neurologic complications

Neurotechnology: brain-computer and brain-machine interfaces

Ethical issues in neurology

Introduction

Overview

Key points

Issues in clinical neuroethics

Clinical applications

Conclusion

References

Contributors

Author

Editor

Former Authors

This is an article preview. Start a Free Account to access the full version.

Questions or Comment?

Also in This Category

Brain death/death by neurologic criteria

Hepatic encephalopathy

Bowel dysfunction in neurologic disorders

Coma due to primary brainstem and diencephalic lesions

Transient visual loss

Neuroimaging in acute stroke

Sports activities: neurologic complications

Neurotechnology: brain-computer and brain-machine interfaces

This is an article preview.
Start a Free Account
to access the full version.