Advertisement

Neuroethics

, Volume 8, Issue 2, pp 107–114 | Cite as

Self-Estrangement & Deep Brain Stimulation: Ethical Issues Related to Forced Explantation

  • Frederic Gilbert
Original Paper

Abstract

Although being generally safe, the use of Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) has been associated with a significant number of patients experiencing postoperative psychological and neurological harm within experimental trials (i.e. self-estrangement, hypersexuality, hypomania, suicidality, impulse control disorders, etc.). A proportion of these postoperative severe adverse effects have lead to the decision to medically prescribe device deactivation or removal. However, there is little debate in the literature as to what is in the patient’s best interest when device removal has been prescribed; in particular, what should be the conceptual approach to ethically guide the decision to remove or maintain implants. The purpose of this article is to examine the ethical issues raised when patients refuse brain device explantation despite medical prescription. In order to illustrate these issues, we report and discuss a clinical case involving a patient suffering from treatment resistant depression who experienced forms of postoperative self-estrangement, as well as suicidal attempts, but who resists giving consent to device explantation.

Keywords

Consent Deep brain stimulation Depression Forced explantation Forced removal Harms Self-estrangement 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Fondation Brocher for its hospitality. Thaks to Eliza Goddard and Susan Dodds. ARC Centre of Excellence for Electromaterials Science (ACES), Project ID: CE140100012.

References

  1. 1.
    Voges, J., et al. 2006. Deep‐brain stimulation: Long‐term analysis of complications caused by hardware and surgery—experiences from a single centre. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry 77(7): 868–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Oh, M.Y., et al. 2002. Long-term hardware-related complications of deep brain stimulation. Neurosurgery 50(6): 1268–1276.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
    Henderson, JM 2006, Permanent neurological deficit related to magnetic resonance Imaging in a patient with implanted deep brain stimulation electrodes for Parkinson’s disease: Case report, Neurosurgery, 57(5). DOI:  10.1227/01.NEU.0000180810.16964.3E.
  5. 5.
    Chang, CH et al., 2009, Hypomania with hypersexuality following bilateral anterior limb stimulation in obsessive-compulsive disorder, J Neurosurg, 112 DOI:  10.3171/2009.10.JNS09918.
  6. 6.
    Schermer, M. 2013. Health, happiness and human enhancement—dealing with unexpected effects of deep brain stimulation. Neuroethics 6(3): 425–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gilbert, F. 2013. Deep brain stimulation for treatment resistant depression: Postoperative feelings of self-estrangement, suicide attempt and impulsive-aggressive behaviours. Neuroethics 6: 473–481. doi: 10.1007/s12152-013-9178-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Muller, S., and H. Walter. 2010. Reviewing autonomy: Implications of the neurosciences and the free will debate for the principle of respect for the patient’s autonomy. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 19: 205–217.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kraemer, F. 2013. Me, myself and my brain implant: Deep brain stimulation raises questions of personal authenticity and alienation. Neuroethics 6: 483–497.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Baylis, F, 2013, “I am Who I Am”: On the perceived threats to personal identity from deep brain stimulation, 6: 513–526.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Funkiewiez, A., C. Ardouin, E. Caputo, et al. 2004. Long term effects of bilateral subthalamic nucleus stimulation on cognitive function, mood, and behaviour in Parkinson’s disease. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry 75: 834–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gilbert, F. 2013. Deep brain stimulation and postoperative suicidability among treatment resistant depression patients: Should eligibility protocols exclude patients with history of suicide attempts and anger/impulsivity? American Journal of Bioethics: Neuroscience 4: 28–35. doi: 10.1080/21507740.2012.740143.
  13. 13.
    Ford, P.J. 2007. Neurosurgical implants: clinical protocol considerations. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 16(3): 308–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Daphne, S., M. Knutelska, N. Dorothy, et al. 2003. Feeling unreal: A depersonalization disorder update of 117 cases. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 64: 990–997. doi: 10.4088/JCP.v64n0903.
  15. 15.
    de Oliveira, J.R.M., and M.F. de Oliveira. 2013. Depicting depersonalization disorder. The American Journal of Psychiatry 170: 263–264. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2012.12111413.
  16. 16.
    Agid, Y., M. Schupbach, M. Gargiulo, et al. 2006. Neurosurgery in Parkinson’s disease: The doctor is happy, the patient less so? Journal of Neural Transmission. Supplementum 70: 400–414.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schupbach, M., M. Gargiulo, M.L. Welter, et al. 2006. Neurosurgery in Parkinson disease: A distressed mind in a repaired body? Neurology 66: 1811–1816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rabins, P., et al. 2009. Scientific and ethical issues related to deep brain stimulation for disorders of mood, behavior, and thought. Archives of General Psychiatry 66(9): 931–937. doi: 10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2009.113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Holtzheimer, P.E., et al. 2012. Subcallosal cingulate deep brain stimulation for treatment-resistant unipolar and bipolar depression. Archives of General Psychiatry 69(2): 150–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lozano, A.M., et al. 2008. Subcallosal cingulate gyrus deep brain stimulation for treatment-resistant depression. Biological Psychiatry 64(6): 461–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chenaud, C., P. Merlani, and B. Ricou. 2007. Research in critically ill patients: Standards of informed consent. Critical Care 11: 110. doi: 10.1186/cc5678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gilbert, F., A. Vranic, and S. Hurst. 2013. Involuntary & voluntary invasive brain surgery: Ethical issues related to acquired aggressiveness. Neuroethics 6: 115–128. doi: 10.1007/s12152-012-9161-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gilbert, F. 2012. The burden of normality: From ‘chronically ill’ to ‘symptom free’. New ethical challenges for deep brain stimulation postoperative treatment. Journal of Medical Ethics 38: 408–412. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2011-100044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schupbach, M., and Y. Agid. 2008. Psychosocial adjustment after deep brain stimulation in Parkinson’s disease. Nature Clinical Practice Neurology 4: 58–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lipsman, N., and W. Glannon. 2013. Brain, mind and machine: What are the implication of deep brain stimulation for perceptions of personal identity, agency and free will? Bioethics 27: 465–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bell E, Racine E, Ethical guidance for the use of deep brain stimulation in psychiatric trials and emerging uses: Review and reflections, in deep brain stimulation, A new Frontier in psychiatry, eds Damiann D, Feenstra M, Schuurman R, 2012; ch 25: 273–88.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ethics, Policy & Public Engagement, ARC Centre of Excellence for Electromaterials Science (ACES)University of TasmaniaHobartAustralia

Personalised recommendations