Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Ethical Challenges of Risk, Informed Consent, and Posttrial Responsibilities in Human Research With Neural Devices: A Review.
Hendriks, Saskia; Grady, Christine; Ramos, Khara M; Chiong, Winston; Fins, Joseph J; Ford, Paul; Goering, Sara; Greely, Henry T; Hutchison, Katrina; Kelly, Michael L; Kim, Scott Y H; Klein, Eran; Lisanby, Sarah H; Mayberg, Helen; Maslen, Hannah; Miller, Franklin G; Rommelfanger, Karen; Sheth, Sameer A; Wexler, Anna.
Afiliação
  • Hendriks S; Clinical Center, Department of Bioethics, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
  • Grady C; National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
  • Ramos KM; Clinical Center, Department of Bioethics, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
  • Chiong W; National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
  • Fins JJ; Department of Neurology, University of California, San Francisco.
  • Ford P; Division of Medical Ethics, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York.
  • Goering S; Consortium for the Advanced Study of Brain Injury, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York.
  • Greely HT; Center for Bioethics, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.
  • Hutchison K; Department of Philosophy, University of Washington, Seattle.
  • Kelly ML; Center for Neurotechnology, University of Washington, Seattle.
  • Kim SYH; Stanford Law School, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
  • Klein E; Department of Philosophy, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
  • Lisanby SH; Australian Research Council, Centre of Excellence for Electromaterials Science, Wollongong, Australia.
  • Mayberg H; MetroHeath Medical Center, School of Medicine, Department of Neurosurgery, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.
  • Maslen H; Clinical Center, Department of Bioethics, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
  • Miller FG; Department of Philosophy, University of Washington, Seattle.
  • Rommelfanger K; Center for Neurotechnology, University of Washington, Seattle.
  • Sheth SA; Department of Neurology, Oregon Health and Sciences, University of Portland, Portland, Oregon.
  • Wexler A; Division of Translational Research, National Institute of Mental Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
JAMA Neurol ; 76(12): 1506-1514, 2019 Dec 01.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31621797
Importance: Developing more and better diagnostic and therapeutic tools for central nervous system disorders is an ethical imperative. Human research with neural devices is important to this effort and a critical focus of the National Institutes of Health Brain Research Through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative. Despite regulations and standard practices for conducting ethical research, researchers and others seek more guidance on how to ethically conduct neural device studies. This article draws on, reviews, specifies, and interprets existing ethical frameworks, literature, and subject matter expertise to address 3 specific ethical challenges in neural devices research: analysis of risk, informed consent, and posttrial responsibilities to research participants. Observations: Research with humans proceeds after careful assessment of the risks and benefits. In assessing whether risks are justified by potential benefits in both invasive and noninvasive neural device research, the following categories of potential risks should be considered: those related to surgery, hardware, stimulation, research itself, privacy and security, and financial burdens. All 3 of the standard pillars of informed consent-disclosure, capacity, and voluntariness-raise challenges in neural device research. Among these challenges are the need to plan for appropriate disclosure of information about atypical and emerging risks of neural devices, a structured evaluation of capacity when that is in doubt, and preventing patients from feeling unduly pressured to participate. Researchers and funders should anticipate participants' posttrial needs linked to study participation and take reasonable steps to facilitate continued access to neural devices that benefit participants. Possible mechanisms for doing so are explored here. Depending on the study, researchers and funders may have further posttrial responsibilities. Conclusions and Relevance: This ethical analysis and points to consider may assist researchers, institutional review boards, funders, and others engaged in human neural device research.

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Etiology_studies / Guideline / Risk_factors_studies Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2019 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Etiology_studies / Guideline / Risk_factors_studies Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2019 Tipo de documento: Article