Neuroethics

, Volume 6, Issue 1, pp 189–196 | Cite as

The Neuroscience of Decision Making and Our Standards for Assessing Competence to Consent

Original Paper

Abstract

Rapid advances in neuroscience may enable us to identify the neural correlates of ordinary decision making. Such knowledge opens up the possibility of acquiring highly accurate information about people’s competence to consent to medical procedures and to participate in medical research. Currently we are unable to determine competence to consent with accuracy and we make a number of unrealistic practical assumptions to deal with our ignorance. Here I argue that if we are able to detect competence to consent and if we are able to develop a reliable neural test of competence to consent, then these assumptions will have to be rejected. I also consider and reject three lines of argument that might be developed by a defender of the status quo in order to protect our current practices regarding judgments of competence in the face of the availability of information about the neural correlates of ordinary human decision making.

Keywords

Competence Decision making capacity Informed consent Neural correlates Rule of thumb Status quo 

References

  1. 1.
    Beauchamp, T.L., and J.F. Childress. 2001. Principles of biomedical ethics, 5th ed, 79. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Buchanan, A., and D. Brock. 1990. Deciding for others: The ethics of surrogate decision-making, 18. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gert, B., C.M. Culver, and D.K. Clouser. 1997. Bioethics: A return to fundamentals, 137. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Welie, J.V.M., and Welie, S.P.K. 2001. Patient Decision-Making Competence: Outline of a Conceptual Analysis. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 4: 127–138: 133.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Appelbaum, P.S., and T. Grisso. 2001. MacCAT-CR: MacArthur competence assessment tool for clinical research. Sarasota, FLA: Professional Resources Press.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Saks, E.R., L.B. Dunn, B.J. Marshall, G.V. Nayak, S. Goldshan, and D.V. Jeste. 2002. The California scale of appreciation: A new instrument to measure the appreciation component of capacity to consent to research. American Journal of Geriatric Surgery 10: 166–174.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    O’Donnell, M.C.K., D.S. Searight, and R.A. Barbarash. 1996. The deaconess informed consent comprehension test: An assessment tool for clinical research subjects. Pharmacotherapy 16: 872–878.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dunn, L.B., M.A. Nowrangi, B.W. Palmer, D.J. Jeste, and E.R. Saks. 2006. Assessing decisional capacity for clinical research or treatment: A review of instruments. The American Journal of Psychiatry 163(8): 1323–1334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Appelbaum, P.S. 2007. Assessment of patients’ competence to consent to treatment. New England Journal of Medicine 357: 1834–1840: 1835Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Iltis, A. 2006. Lay concepts in informed consent to biomedical research: The capacity to understand and appreciate risk. Bioethics 20: 180–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kleinig, J. 1982. The ethics of consent. In New essays in ethics and public policy, ed. K. Nielsen and S.C. Patten, 91–118. Guelph, Ontario: Canadian Association for Publishing in Philosophy.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Clarke, S. 2001. Informed consent in medicine in comparison with consent in other areas of human activity. Southern Journal of Philosophy 39: 169–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hunter, D., and B.K. Pierscionek. 2007. Children, Gillick competency and consent for involvement in research. Journal of Medical Ethics 33: 659–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Drane, J. 1985. The many faces of competency. The Hastings Center Report 15(2): 17–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Culver, C.M. and Gert, B. 1990. The Inadequacy of Incompetence. The Milbank Quarterly 68, 4: 619–643: 635.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Buchanan, A. 2006. Competency to stand trial and the seriousness of the charge. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 34: 458–465.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gold, J.I., and M.N. Shadlen. 2007. The neural basis of decision making. Annual Review of Neuroscience 30: 535–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Libet, B., C.A. Gleason, E.W. Wright, and D.K. Pearl. 1983. Time of conscious intention to act in relation to onset of cerebral activities (Readiness-Potential): The unconscious initiation of a freely voluntary act. Brain 106: 623–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Reddi, B.A., K.N. Asrress, and R.H. Carpenter. 2003. Accuracy, information and response time in a saccadic decision task. Journal of Neurophysiology 90: 3538–3546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Domasio, A. 1994. Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason and the human brain. London: Picador.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Beauregard, M., J. Levesque, and P. Bourgouin. 2001. Neural correlates of conscious self-regulation of emotion. Journal of Neuroscience 21(165): 1–6.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Padoa-Schioppa, C., and J.A. Assad. 2006. Neurons in the orbitofrontal cortex encode economic value. Nature 441: 223–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yeung, N., and A.G. Sanfrey. 2004. Independent coding of reward magnitude and valence in the human brain. Journal of Neuroscience 24: 6258–6264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Northoff, G. 2006. Neuroscience of decision making and informed consent: An investigation in neuroethics. Journal of Medical Ethics 32: 70–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Palmer, B.W., and G.N. Savla. 2007. The association of specific neuropsychological deficits with capacity to consent to research or treatment. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society 13: 1047–1059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Candilis, P.J., and C.W. Lidz. 2010. Advances in Informed Consent Research. In The ethics of consent; theory and practice, ed. F.G. Miller and A. Wertheimer, 329–346. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hansson, S.O. 2001. Coping with the unpredictable effects of future technologies. Philosophy and Technology 24(2): 137–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    McClintock, J.F.S.M., A.A. Alexander, and M.M. Husain. 2010. Ethics and informed consent of Vagus Nerve Stimulation (VNS) for patients with Treatment-Resistant Depression (TRD). Neuroethics 3: 13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Farah, M.J., M.E. Smith, C. Gawagu, D. Lindsell, and D. Foster. 2008. Brain imaging and brain privacy: A realistic concern? Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 21(1): 119–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Räikkä, J. 2010. Brain imaging and privacy. Neuroethics 3: 5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Goffman, E. 1982. The presentation of self in everyday life. Reading: Penguin.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Nissenbaum, H. 2004. Privacy as contextual integrity. Washington Law Review 79: 119–158.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kalra, D., R. Gertz, P. Singleton, and H.M. Inskip. 2006. Confidentiality of personal health information used for research. British Medical Journal 333: 196–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Frederick, S. 2002. Automated Choice Heuristics. In Heuristics and biases: the psychology of intuitive judgment, ed. T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, and D. Kahneman, 589–558. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bostrom, N., and A. Sandberg. 2009. Cognitive enhancement: Methods, Ethics, Regulatory challenges. Science and Engineering Ethics 15: 311–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Savulescu, J., and N. Bostrom (eds.). 2009. Human enhancement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Savulescu, J., T.R. Meelen, and G. Kahane (eds.). 2011. Enhancing human capacities. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Oxford Martin Institute and Faculty of PhilosophyUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations