Cabrera Laura Yenisa, Brandt Marisa, McKenzie Rachel, Bluhm Robyn
a Center of Ethics and Humanities in the Life Sciences , Michigan State University , East Lansing , Michigan , USA.
b Lyman Briggs College , Michigan State University , East Lansing , Michigan , USA.
AJOB Empir Bioeth. 2018 Oct-Dec;9(4):252-266. doi: 10.1080/23294515.2018.1512534. Epub 2018 Nov 6.
Psychiatric interventions are a contested area in medicine, not only because of their history of abuses, but also because their therapeutic goal is to affect emotions, thoughts, beliefs, and behaviors that are regarded as pathological. Because psychiatric interventions affect characteristics that seem central to who we are, they raise issues regarding identity, autonomy, and personal responsibility for one's own well-being. Our study addresses two questions: (1) Do the public and academic researchers understand the philosophical stakes of these technologies in the same way? Following from this, (2) to what extent does the specific type of psychiatric technology affect the issues these two groups raise? This study compares how ethical issues regarding neurosurgical and pharmaceutical psychiatric interventions are discussed among the public and in the professional community of academic medicine and bioethics.
We analyzed (1) online public comments and (2) the medical and bioethics literature, comparing the discussions of pharmacological and neurosurgical interventions in psychiatry in each source.
Overall, the public discussed philosophical issues less frequently than academics. For the two types of psychiatric interventions, we found differences between the academic literature and public comments among all themes, except for personal responsibility.
These findings reveal some of the similarities and discrepancies in how philosophical issues associated with psychiatric treatments are discussed in professional circles and among the public. Further research into what causes these discrepancies is crucial.
精神科干预在医学领域是一个存在争议的领域，这不仅是因为其存在滥用的历史，还因为其治疗目标是影响那些被视为病态的情绪、思想、信念和行为。由于精神科干预会影响那些似乎对我们的本质至关重要的特征，它们引发了关于身份认同、自主性以及个人对自身幸福的责任等问题。我们的研究探讨两个问题：（1）公众和学术研究人员对这些技术的哲学利害关系的理解方式是否相同？由此延伸，（2）特定类型的精神科技术在多大程度上影响这两组人提出的问题？本研究比较了公众以及学术医学和生物伦理学专业群体中关于神经外科和药物精神科干预的伦理问题的讨论情况。
我们分析了（1）在线公众评论和（2）医学与生物伦理学文献，比较了每个来源中对精神科药物和神经外科干预的讨论。
总体而言，公众比学者更少讨论哲学问题。对于这两种类型的精神科干预，我们发现在所有主题上，学术文献与公众评论之间存在差异，但个人责任主题除外。
这些发现揭示了在专业圈子和公众中讨论与精神科治疗相关的哲学问题时的一些异同。进一步研究造成这些差异的原因至关重要。
