Shaw Jonathan, Pyreddy Sagar, Rosendahl Colton, Lai Charles, Ton Emily, Carter Rustin
School of Medicine, California University of Science and Medicine, Colton, CA 92324, USA.
Psychiatry, Eisenhower Health, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270, USA.
Diseases. 2025 Aug 14;13(8):262. doi: 10.3390/diseases13080262.
The use of neuromodulation for the treatment of psychiatric disorders has become increasingly common, but this emerging treatment modality comes with ethical concerns. This scoping review aims to synthesize the neuroethical discourse from the past 10 years on the use of neurotechnologies for psychiatric conditions.
A total of 4496 references were imported from PubMed, Embase, and Scopus. The inclusion criteria required a discussion of the neuroethics of neuromodulation and studies published between 2014 and 2024.
Of the 77 references, a majority discussed ethical concerns of patient autonomy and informed consent for neuromodulation, with neurotechnologies being increasingly seen as autonomy enablers. Concepts of changes in patient identity and personality, especially after deep brain stimulation, were also discussed extensively. The risks and benefits of neurotechnologies were also compared, with deep brain stimulation being seen as the riskiest but also possessing the highest efficacy. Concerns about equitable access and justice were raised regarding the rise of private transcranial magnetic stimulation clinics and the current experimental status of deep brain stimulation.
Neuroethics discourse, particularly for deep brain stimulation, has continued to focus on how post-intervention changes in personality and behavior influence patient identity. Multiple conceptual frameworks have been proposed, though each faces critiques for addressing only parts of this complex phenomenon, prompting calls for pluralistic models. Emerging technologies, especially those involving artificial intelligence through brain computer interfaces, add new dimensions to this debate by raising concerns about neuroprivacy and legal responsibility for actions, further blurring the lines for defining personal identity.
神经调节用于治疗精神疾病的情况日益普遍,但这种新兴的治疗方式引发了伦理问题。本范围综述旨在综合过去10年中关于使用神经技术治疗精神疾病的神经伦理讨论。
从PubMed、Embase和Scopus共导入4496篇参考文献。纳入标准要求讨论神经调节的神经伦理以及2014年至2024年期间发表的研究。
在77篇参考文献中,大多数讨论了神经调节中患者自主性和知情同意的伦理问题,神经技术越来越被视为自主性促进因素。患者身份和个性变化的概念,尤其是在深部脑刺激之后,也得到了广泛讨论。还比较了神经技术的风险和益处,深部脑刺激被视为风险最高但疗效也最高的技术。针对私人经颅磁刺激诊所的兴起以及深部脑刺激目前的实验状态,人们提出了关于公平获取和正义的担忧。
神经伦理讨论,特别是关于深部脑刺激的讨论,继续关注干预后个性和行为的变化如何影响患者身份。已经提出了多个概念框架,尽管每个框架都因只解决了这一复杂现象的部分问题而面临批评,这促使人们呼吁采用多元模型。新兴技术,特别是那些通过脑机接口涉及人工智能的技术,通过引发对神经隐私和行为法律责任的担忧,为这场辩论增添了新的维度,进一步模糊了界定个人身份的界限。