Ethics of neuroscience debate Flashcards
What is the understanding consciousness key points?
If we can locate the consciousness does that mean those in a persistent vegetative state should have life support withdrawn?
Do we have the moral right to withdraw care?
Crick and Koch (1998) propose?
The claustrum is the seat of consciousness.
How can understanding consciousness be seen as ethical?
Could help us make decisions about patients who are in a persistent vegetative state.
The decision to end their life could be based on the knowledge of whether they remain conscious or not.
What did Koubeissi et al (2014) find?
Studied a 54-year-old woman suffered from severe epilepsy.
During some tests of her brain, an electrode placed near the claustrum was electrically stimulated.
The woman stopped reading, stared blankly and didn’t respond to visual or auditory commands.
When the stimulation stopped, she immediately regained consciousness with no recollection of the event.
How can understanding consciousness be seen as not ethical?
Creates the difficulty of deciding if we have the moral right to withdraw care.
The findings from Koubeissi et al are derived from a study of one individual and can therefore not be generalised and need to be treated with caution.
What are the treating criminal behaviour key points?
Part of the role of any criminal justice system is to rehabilitate offenders to prevent further criminal behaviour.
Some people believe that criminal behaviour stems from abnormal levels of certain neurotransmitters.
If this is true, then drugs could be used to “treat” criminals.
What did Cherek et al (2002) investigate?
Investigated the levels of impulsivity and aggression in males with a history of conduct disorder and criminal behaviour.
1/2 received a placebo for 21 days.
The other 1/2 were administered paroxetine (an SSRI antidepressant).
Those who received paroxetine showed a significant decrease in impulsive responses and aggression declined by the end of the study.
How can treating criminal behaviour be seen as ethical?
Offering pharmacological treatments to criminals could reduce recidivism and make society safer.
A court may offer a convicted criminal the choice of a prison term or a course of medication.
What did Martha Farah (2004) argue?
Argues that, if courts use neurological interventions, it signals the denial of an individual’s freedom.
This is something that even prisoners haven’t been denied previously.
How can treating criminal behaviour be seen as not ethical?
Although neuroscientists may link criminal behaviours to neurological imbalances, many see crime as a response to the social context.
Even if there is a neurological basis to criminal behaviour, there is the question about whether it’s acceptable to include mandatory neurological interventions for prisoners.
What are the implications of neuroscience?
Neuroscientists who help treat or even cure these disorders could save the UK economy billions of pounds.
Neuroscientists have a responsibility to ensure the societies in which they work are informed and aware of the implications of their work.
Nuffield Trust (2014)
Since the financial crisis in 2008, there has been an increase in the amount of antidepressants being prescribed.
The trust also noted a greater rise in antidepressant usage amongst areas of the population with higher rates of employment.
Thomas and Morris (2003)
Estimated that the total cost of depression in adults in England alone was £9.1 billion in 2000.
Alzheimer’s Research UK
The cost to the UK economy of treating dementia is £23 billion per year.
Conclusion
Neuroscientists aren’t solely responsible for the way their research is used but it’s also the responsibility of governments, regulatory bodies and other institutions in society to ensure that neuroscientific knowledge is applied in an appropriate ethical way.
Conclusion - ETHICAL
It is clear that knowledge in the field of neuroscience has grown exponentially since Phineas Gage.
It has offered us great insight into understanding how our brain works and as a result has led to the development of many explanations of both normal and abnormal behaviour.
It offers “stigma-free” explanations of behaviour.
Conclusion - NOT ETHICAL
However, the knowledge it produces when published becomes accessible to all, whether their intentions for its use are good or not good.
