Suppr超能文献

脑深部电刺激与自主性:阐明理论神经伦理学的作用。

DBS and Autonomy: Clarifying the Role of Theoretical Neuroethics.

作者信息

Zuk Peter, Lázaro-Muñoz Gabriel

机构信息

Baylor College of Medicine and Rice University, Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, 1 Baylor Plaza, Houston, TX 77030.

Baylor College of Medicine, Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, 1 Baylor Plaza, Houston, TX 77030.

出版信息

Neuroethics. 2021 Oct;14(Suppl 1):83-93. doi: 10.1007/s12152-019-09417-4. Epub 2019 Jul 25.

Abstract

Gilbert, Viaña, and Ineichen call for further empirical work on the effects of deep brain stimulation (DBS) on personality, identity, agency, authenticity, autonomy and self (PIAAAS) (Gilbert et al. 2018a). In particular, they emphasize the need for more sophisticated instruments measuring potential changes in PIAAAS. The development of such instruments, they argue, will provide a stronger empirical foundation for theoretical neuroethics work on DBS. We agree with this proposal. However, we believe that theoretical neuroethics has an important role to play in advancing empirical neuroethics that is not emphasized in Gilbert et al.'s remarks on the relationship between empirical and theoretical neuroethics. The development of instruments for more fully assessing changes in PIAAAS will require significant clarification of its component concepts. This task of clarification is the purview of theoretical neuroethics. In this article, we sketch how theoretical neuroethics can clarify the concept of autonomy. We hope that this can both serve as a model for the conceptual clarification of other components of PIAAAS and contribute to the development of the empirical measures that Gilbert and colleagues propose.

摘要

吉尔伯特、维亚尼亚和伊内申呼吁针对深部脑刺激(DBS)对人格、身份、能动性、真实性、自主性和自我(PIAAAS)的影响开展进一步的实证研究(吉尔伯特等人,2018a)。他们特别强调需要更精密的工具来测量PIAAAS的潜在变化。他们认为,开发此类工具将为关于DBS的理论神经伦理学研究提供更坚实的实证基础。我们赞同这一提议。然而,我们认为理论神经伦理学在推进实证神经伦理学方面可发挥重要作用,而吉尔伯特等人关于实证神经伦理学与理论神经伦理学关系的论述中并未强调这一点。要开发出能更全面评估PIAAAS变化的工具,就需要对其组成概念进行重大澄清。这项澄清任务属于理论神经伦理学的范畴。在本文中,我们概述了理论神经伦理学如何能够澄清自主性的概念。我们希望这既能为PIAAAS其他组成部分的概念澄清提供一个范例,又能有助于吉尔伯特及其同事所提议的实证测量方法的开发。

相似文献

1
6
Authenticity and autonomy in deep-brain stimulation.深部脑刺激中的真实性与自主性
J Med Ethics. 2014 Aug;40(8):563-6. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2013-101419. Epub 2013 May 22.
7
Neuroethics: A Conceptual Approach.《神经伦理学:一种概念性方法》
Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2018 Oct;27(4):717-727. doi: 10.1017/S0963180118000208.
10
Deep Brain Stimulation and the Search for Identity.深部脑刺激与身份探寻
Neuroethics. 2013;6(3):499-511. doi: 10.1007/s12152-011-9100-1. Epub 2011 Feb 16.

引用本文的文献

2
Neurotechnologies, Ethics, and the Limits of Free Will.神经技术、伦理学与自由意志的极限
Integr Psychol Behav Sci. 2024 Sep;58(3):894-907. doi: 10.1007/s12124-024-09830-2. Epub 2024 Feb 23.
8
Operationalizing Agency in Brain Computer Interface (BCI) Research.脑机接口(BCI)研究中能动性的实施
AJOB Neurosci. 2021 Apr-Sep;12(2-3):203-205. doi: 10.1080/21507740.2021.1904052.
10
Neuroethics in the Shadow of a Pandemic.大流行阴影下的神经伦理学。
AJOB Neurosci. 2020 Jul-Sep;11(3):W1-W4. doi: 10.1080/21507740.2020.1778130.

本文引用的文献

5
A Threat to Autonomy? The Intrusion of Predictive Brain Implants.对自主性的威胁?预测性脑植入物的侵扰。
AJOB Neurosci. 2015 Oct 2;6(4):4-11. doi: 10.1080/21507740.2015.1076087. Epub 2015 Nov 30.
7
Preserved covert cognition in noncommunicative patients with severe brain injury?重度脑损伤非交流性患者中保留的隐性认知?
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2015 May;29(4):308-17. doi: 10.1177/1545968314547767. Epub 2014 Aug 26.

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