Center of Ethics and Humanities in the Life Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA.
Lyman Briggs College, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA.
Soc Sci Med. 2019 Jan;220:184-192. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.11.021. Epub 2018 Nov 12.
The field of biological psychiatry is controversial, with both academics and members of the public questioning the validity and the responsible use of psychiatric technological interventions. The field of neuroethics provides insight into these controversies by examining key themes that characterize specific topics, attitudes, and reasoning tools that people use to evaluate interventions in the brain and mind. This study offers new empirical neuroethical insights into how the public responds to the use and development of psychiatric technological interventions by comparing how the public evaluates pharmacological and neurosurgical psychiatric interventions, in the context of online comments on news media articles about these topics. We analyzed 1142 comments from 108 articles dealing with psychopharmacological and psychiatric neurosurgery interventions on websites of major circulation USA newspapers and magazines published between 2005 and 2015. Personal anecdote, medical professional issues, medicalization, social issues, disadvantages, scientific issues and cautionary realism were among the main themes raised by commenters. The insights derived from the comments can contribute to improving communication between professionals and the public as well as to incorporating the public's views in policy decisions about psychiatric interventions.
生物精神病学领域颇具争议性，学术界人士和公众均对精神科技术干预的有效性和合理使用提出了质疑。神经伦理学领域通过研究能刻画特定主题的关键主题、态度和推理工具，为这些争议提供了深入见解，这些主题、态度和推理工具是人们用来评估大脑和心理干预措施的。本研究通过比较公众对精神药理学和神经外科学精神干预措施的评价，在新闻媒体对这些主题的文章上提供了新的关于公众对精神科技术干预措施的使用和发展的实证神经伦理学见解。我们分析了 2005 年至 2015 年间美国主流发行的报纸和杂志网站上刊登的 108 篇关于精神药理学和精神神经外科干预措施的文章中的 1142 条评论。评论者提出的主要主题包括个人轶事、医疗专业人员问题、医学化、社会问题、缺点、科学问题和谨慎现实主义。这些评论所带来的见解有助于改善专业人员与公众之间的沟通，并将公众的观点纳入精神科干预措施的政策决策中。
