Suppr超能文献

替代神经疗法的伦理与法律考量

Ethical and Legal Considerations of Alternative Neurotherapies.

作者信息

Nagappan Ashwini, Kalokairinou Louiza, Wexler Anna

机构信息

University of Pennsylvania.

出版信息

AJOB Neurosci. 2021 Oct-Dec;12(4):257-269. doi: 10.1080/21507740.2021.1896601. Epub 2021 Mar 24.

Abstract

Neurotherapies for diagnostics and treatment-such as electroencephalography (EEG) neurofeedback, single-photon emission computerized tomography (SPECT) imaging for neuropsychiatric evaluation, and off-label/experimental uses of brain stimulation-are continuously being offered to the public outside mainstream healthcare settings. Because these neurotherapies share many key features of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) techniques-and meet the definition of CAM as set out in Kaptchuk and Eisenberg-here we refer to them as "alternative neurotherapies." By explicitly linking these alternative neurotherapy practices under a common conceptual framework, this paper draws attention to, and critically considers, the cross-cutting ethical and legal issues related to the provision of these services. The first section of this paper provides an updated empirical overview of uses of SPECT neuropsychiatric evaluations, EEG neurofeedback, and experimental/off-label forms of brain stimulation. Next, drawing on CAM bioethics scholarship, we highlight the pertinent ethical issues in the alternative neurotherapy context, including the truthful representation of evidence base, marketing to vulnerable populations, potential harms, provider competency, and conflicts of interest. Finally, we consider the principal legal issues at stake for the provision of alternative neurotherapies in the U.S., namely those related to licensing and scope-of-practice considerations. We conclude with recommendations for future research in this domain.

摘要

用于诊断和治疗的神经疗法——如脑电图(EEG)神经反馈、用于神经精神评估的单光子发射计算机断层扫描(SPECT)成像以及脑刺激的非标签/实验性应用——不断在主流医疗环境之外向公众提供。由于这些神经疗法具有补充和替代医学(CAM)技术的许多关键特征,并且符合卡普丘克和艾森伯格所提出的CAM定义,因此我们在此将它们称为“替代神经疗法”。通过在一个共同的概念框架下明确地将这些替代神经疗法实践联系起来,本文提请人们关注并批判性地思考与提供这些服务相关的交叉伦理和法律问题。本文的第一部分提供了关于SPECT神经精神评估、EEG神经反馈以及脑刺激的实验性/非标签形式应用的最新实证概述。接下来,借鉴CAM生物伦理学的学术成果,我们突出了替代神经疗法背景下的相关伦理问题,包括证据基础的如实呈现、向弱势群体进行营销、潜在危害、提供者的能力以及利益冲突。最后,我们考虑在美国提供替代神经疗法所涉及的主要法律问题,即那些与许可和执业范围考量相关的问题。我们最后给出了该领域未来研究的建议。

相似文献

1
Ethical and Legal Considerations of Alternative Neurotherapies.替代神经疗法的伦理与法律考量
AJOB Neurosci. 2021 Oct-Dec;12(4):257-269. doi: 10.1080/21507740.2021.1896601. Epub 2021 Mar 24.
2
Neurofeedback as placebo: a case of unintentional deception?神经反馈作为安慰剂:一种无意识的欺骗案例?
J Med Ethics. 2022 Dec;48(12):1037-1042. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2021-107435. Epub 2021 Sep 14.
4
Moral experience: a framework for bioethics research.道德体验:生物伦理学研究的框架。
J Med Ethics. 2011 Nov;37(11):658-62. doi: 10.1136/jme.2010.039008. Epub 2011 Apr 22.
7
Quality of scholarship in bioethics.生物伦理学的学术质量。
J Med Philos. 1990 Apr;15(2):161-78. doi: 10.1093/jmp/15.2.161.

本文引用的文献

4
Oversight of direct-to-consumer neurotechnologies.对直接面向消费者的神经技术的监管。
Science. 2019 Jan 18;363(6424):234-235. doi: 10.1126/science.aav0223.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验