DBS and Autonomy: Clarifying the Role of Theoretical Neuroethics.

IF 2.6 4区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS Neuroethics Pub Date : 2021-10-01 Epub Date: 2019-07-25 DOI:10.1007/s12152-019-09417-4
Peter Zuk, Gabriel Lázaro-Muñoz
{"title":"DBS and Autonomy: Clarifying the Role of Theoretical Neuroethics.","authors":"Peter Zuk,&nbsp;Gabriel Lázaro-Muñoz","doi":"10.1007/s12152-019-09417-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":49255,"journal":{"name":"Neuroethics","volume":"14 Suppl 1","pages":"83-93"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s12152-019-09417-4","citationCount":"15","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuroethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-019-09417-4","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2019/7/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 15

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.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
脑起搏器与自主性:阐明理论神经伦理学的作用。
Gilbert, Viaña和Ineichen呼吁对脑深部刺激(DBS)对人格、身份、代理、真实性、自主性和自我(PIAAAS)的影响进行进一步的实证研究(Gilbert et al. 2018a)。他们特别强调需要更复杂的仪器来测量PIAAAS的潜在变化。他们认为,这些工具的发展将为DBS的理论神经伦理学工作提供更强大的经验基础。我们同意这个建议。然而,我们认为理论神经伦理学在推进经验神经伦理学方面发挥着重要作用,而吉尔伯特等人对经验神经伦理学和理论神经伦理学之间关系的评论并没有强调这一点。为更充分地评估PIAAAS的变化而开发的工具将需要对其组成概念进行重大澄清。这个澄清的任务是理论神经伦理学的范围。在这篇文章中,我们概述了理论神经伦理学如何阐明自主性的概念。我们希望这既可以作为PIAAAS其他组成部分概念澄清的模型,也有助于吉尔伯特及其同事提出的实证措施的发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Neuroethics
Neuroethics MEDICAL ETHICS-
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
7.10%
发文量
31
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Neuroethics is an international, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to academic articles on the ethical, legal, political, social and philosophical questions provoked by research in the contemporary sciences of the mind and brain; especially, but not only, neuroscience, psychiatry and psychology. The journal publishes articles on questions raised by the sciences of the brain and mind, and on the ways in which the sciences of the brain and mind illuminate longstanding debates in ethics and philosophy.
期刊最新文献
Responding to existential distress at the end of life: Psychedelics and psychedelic experiences and/ as medicine Deep Brain Stimulation for Consciousness Disorders; Technical and Ethical Considerations Neurorights, Mental Privacy, and Mind Reading A Transformative Trip? Experiences of Psychedelic Use Neurotechnological Applications and the Protection of Mental Privacy: An Assessment of Risks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1