Neuroethics

, Volume 10, Issue 2, pp 235–242

Emerging Ethical Issues Related to the Use of Brain-Computer Interfaces for Patients with Total Locked-in Syndrome

Original Paper

Abstract

New brain-computer interface and neuroimaging techniques are making differentiation less ambiguous and more accurate between unresponsive wakefulness syndrome patients and patients with higher cognitive function and awareness. As research into these areas continues to progress, new ethical issues will face physicians of patients suffering from total locked-in syndrome (total LIS), characterized by complete loss of voluntary muscle control, with retention of cognitive function and awareness detectable only with neuroimaging and brain-computer interfaces. Physicians, researchers, ethicists and hospital ethics committees should be aware of and prepared to handle ethical issues unique to these totally locked-in patients. Several thought experiments are discussed, to highlight potential ethical dilemmas surrounding surrogate decision-making, autonomy, end-of-life care, and pediatric care, which will be unique to total LIS patients. These, along with other ethical problems especially relevant to total LIS patients, merit further discussion among physicians, researchers, ethicists and hospital ethics committees, to facilitate consensus regarding these issues, and improve patient care.

Keywords

Total locked-in syndrome Brain-computer interface Surrogate decision-making Autonomy Pediatric care End-of-life care 

References

  1. 1.
    Wolpaw, Jonathan R., and Elizabeth Winter Wolpaw. 2012. Brain-computer interfaces: something new under the sun. In Brain-computer interfaces: principles and practice, ed. Jonathan R. Wolpaw and Elizabeth Winter Wolpaw, 3–11. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bruno, Marie-Aurélie, Audrey Vanhaudenhuyse, Aurore Thibaut, Gustave Moonen, and Steven Laureys. 2011. From unresponsive wakefulness to minimally conscious PLUS and functional locked-in syndromes: recent advances in our understanding of disorders of consciousness. Journal of Neurology. 258(7): 1373–1384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Haynes, John-Dylan, and Geraint Rees. 2006. Decoding mental states from brain activity in humans. Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 7: 523–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    John, E. Roy, James P. Halper, R. Sandlin Lowe III, Henry Merkin, Philip Defina, and Leslie S. Prichep. 2011. Source imaging of QEEG as a method to detect awareness in a person in vegetative state. Brain Injury. 25(4): 426–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Laureys, Steven, Fabien Perrin, Caroline Schnakers, Melanie Boly, and Steve Majerus. 2005. Residual cognitive function in comatose, vegetative and minimally conscious states. Current Opinion in Neurology. 18: 726–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Monti, Martin M., Audrey Vanhaudenhuyse, Martin Coleman, et al. 2010. Willful modulation of brain activity in disorders of consciousness. New England Journal of Medicine. 362(7): 579–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nakase-Richardson, R., S. Yablon, M. Sherer, C. Evans, and T. Nick. 2008. Serial yes/no reliability after traumatic brain injury: implications regarding the operational criteria for emergence from the minimally conscious state. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry. 79: 216–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Staffen, W., M. Kronbichler, M. Aichhorn, A. Mair, and G. Ladurner. 2006. Selective brain activity in response to one’s own name in the persistent vegetative state. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry. 77(12): 1383–1384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bauer, G., F. Gerstenbrand, and E. Rumpl. 1979. Varieties of the locked-in syndrome. Journal of Neurology. 221(2): 77–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kübler, A., and N. Birbaumer. 2008. Brain-computer interfaces and communication in paralysis: extinction of goal directed thinking in completely paralyzed patients? Clinical Neurophysiology. 119(11): 2658–2666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Birbaumer, Niels, Ander Ramos Murguialday, and Leonardo Cohen. 2008. Brain-computer interface in paralysis. Current Opinion in Neurology. 21(6): 634–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fenton, Andrew, and Sheri Alpert. 2008. Extending our view on using BCIs for locked-in syndrome. Neuroethics 1: 119–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hayashi, Hideaki, and Edward Anthony Oppenheimer. 2003. ALS patients on TPPV: totally locked-in state, neurologic findings and ethical implications. Neurology 61(1): 135–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Naito, Masayoshi, Yohko Michioka, Kuniaki Ozawa, Yoshitoshi Ito, Masashi Kiguchi, and Tsuneo Kanazawa. 2007. A communication means for totally locked-in ALS patients based on changes in cerebral blood volume measured with near-infrared light. IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems. E90-D(7): 1028–1037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Birbaumer, N., N. Ghanayim, T. Hinterberger, I. Iversen, B. Kotchoubey, A. Kübler, J. Perelmouter, E. Taub, and H. Flor. 1999. A spelling device for the paralysed. Nature 398(6725): 297–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hochberg, Leigh R., and Kim D. Anderson. 2012. BCI users and their needs. In Brain-computer interfaces: principles and practice, ed. Jonathan R. Wolpaw and Elizabeth Winter Wolpaw, 317–322. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fins, Joseph J., and Nicholas D. Schiff. 2010. In the blink of the Mind’s eye. Hastings Center Report. 40(3): 21–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Allain, Philippe, Pierre Alain Joseph, Jean Luc Isambert, Didier Le Gall, and Jean Emile. 1998. Cognitive functions in chronic locked-in syndrome: a report of two cases. Cortex 34(4): 629–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bruno, Marie-Auriéle, Jan L. Bernheim, Didier Ledoux, Frédéric Pellas, Athena Demertzi, and Steven Laureys. 2011. A survey on self-assessed well-being in a cohort of chronic locked-in syndrome patients: happy majority, miserable minority. BMJ Open 1: e000039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Laureys, Steven, Frédéric Pellas, Philippe Van Eeckhout, et al. 2005. The locked-in syndrome: what is it like to be conscious but paralyzed and voiceless? Progress in Brain Research. 150: 495–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lulé, D., C. Zickler, S. Häcker, et al. 2009. Life can be worth living in locked-in syndrome. Progress in Brain Research. 177: 339–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sellers, Eric W., Theresa M. Vaughan, and Jonathan R. Wolpaw. 2010. A brain-computer interface for long-term independent home use. Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis. 11(5): 449–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nijboer, Femke, Jens Clausen, Brendan Z. Allison, and Pim Haselager. 2013. The Asilomar survey: stakeholders’ opinions on ethical issues related to brain-computer interfacing. Neuroethics 6: 541–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kopsky, David Jos, Yvonne Winninghoff, Albert C.M. Winninghoff, and Janneke Marjan Stolwijk-Swüste. 2014. A novel spelling system for locked-in syndrome patients using only eye contact. Disability and Rehabilitation. 36(20): 1723–1727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    American Medical Association. 2012. Code of medical ethics of the American Medical Association current opinions with annotations. .http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/medical-ethics/code-medical-ethics.page. Accessed 16 Mar 2016
  26. 26.
    Supreme Court of the United States. 1944. Prince v. Massachusetts. 321 U.S. 158.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sheldon, Mark. 1996. Ethical issues in the forced transfusion of Jehovah’s witness children. The Journal of Emergency Medicine. 14(2): 251–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schneider, Mary-Jane, Joseph J. Fins, and Jonathan R. Wolpaw. 2012. Ethical issues in BCI research. In Brain-computer interfaces: principles and practice, ed. Jonathan R. Wolpaw and Elizabeth Winter Wolpaw, 373–382. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hammer, Eva Marie, Sonja Häcker, Martin Hautzinger, Thomas D. Meyer, and Andrea Kübler. 2008. Validity of the ALS-depression-inventory (ADI-12) – a new screening instrument for depressive disorders in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Journal of Affective Disorders. 109(1–2): 213–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hart, Robert P., James L. Levenson, Curtis N. Sessler, Al M. Best, Steven M. Schwartz, and Laura E. Rutherford. 1996. Validation of a cognitive test for delirium in medical ICU patients. Psychosomatics 37(6): 533–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    American Academy of Neurology (AAN). 1993. Position of the American Academy of Neurology on certain aspects of the care and management of profoundly and irreversibly paralyzed patients with retained consciousness and cognition. Neurology 43: 222–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Maytal, Guy, and Theodore A. Stern. 2006. The desire for death in the setting of terminal illness: a case discussion. The Primary Care Companion to the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry. 8(5): 299–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Binks, Jessie A., Wendy S. Barden, Tricia A. Burke, and Nancy L. Young. 2007. What do We really know about the transition to adult-centered health care? A focus on cerebral palsy and Spina bifida. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 88(8): 1064–1073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kawachi, Ichiro, and Lisa F. Berkman. 2001. Social ties and mental health. Journal of Urban Health. 78(3): 458–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Biology DepartmentBrigham Young UniversityProvoUSA

Personalised recommendations