ABSTRACT
Advancements in novel neurotechnologies, such as brain computer interfaces (BCI) and neuromodulatory devices such as deep brain stimulators (DBS), will have profound implications for society and human rights. While these technologies are improving the diagnosis and treatment of mental and neurological diseases, they can also alter individual agency and estrange those using neurotechnologies from their sense of self, challenging basic notions of what it means to be human. As an international coalition of interdisciplinary scholars and practitioners, we examine these challenges and make recommendations to mitigate negative consequences that could arise from the unregulated development or application of novel neurotechnologies. We explore potential ethical challenges in four key areas: identity and agency, privacy, bias, and enhancement. To address them, we propose (1) democratic and inclusive summits to establish globally-coordinated ethical and societal guidelines for neurotechnology development and application, (2) new measures, including "Neurorights," for data privacy, security, and consent to empower neurotechnology users' control over their data, (3) new methods of identifying and preventing bias, and (4) the adoption of public guidelines for safe and equitable distribution of neurotechnological devices.
Subject(s)
Artificial Intelligence/ethics , Bioengineering/ethics , Brain-Computer Interfaces/ethics , Codes of Ethics , Guidelines as Topic , Neurosciences/ethics , Privacy , Alzheimer Disease/diagnosis , Animals , Artificial Intelligence/economics , Artificial Intelligence/trends , Bioengineering/economics , Bioengineering/trends , Biomedical Enhancement/ethics , Biomedical Enhancement/methods , Brain-Computer Interfaces/economics , Brain-Computer Interfaces/trends , Electroencephalography , Female , Humans , Individuality , Informed Consent/ethics , Informed Consent/legislation & jurisprudence , Male , Neural Networks, Computer , Neurosciences/economics , Neurosciences/trends , Parkinson Disease/diagnosis , Privacy/legislation & jurisprudenceABSTRACT
With pragmatic clinical trials, an opportunity exists to answer important questions about the relative risks, burdens, and benefits of therapeutic interventions. However, concerns about protecting the privacy of this information are significant and must be balanced with the imperative to learn from the data gathered in routine clinical practice. Traditional privacy protections for research uses of identifiable information rely disproportionately on informed consent or authorizations, based on a presumption that this is necessary to fulfill ethical principles of respect for persons. But frequently, the ideal of informed consent is not realized in its implementation. Moreover, the principle of respect for personswhich encompasses their interests in health information privacycan be honored through other mechanisms. Data anonymization also plays a role in protecting privacy but is not suitable for all research, particularly pragmatic clinical trials. In this article, we explore both the ethical foundation and regulatory framework intended to protect privacy in pragmatic clinical trials. We then review examples of novel approaches to respecting persons in research that may have the added benefit of honoring patient privacy considerations.
Subject(s)
Clinical Trials as Topic/ethics , Clinical Trials as Topic/legislation & jurisprudence , Confidentiality/ethics , Confidentiality/legislation & jurisprudence , Informed Consent/ethics , Informed Consent/legislation & jurisprudence , Privacy/legislation & jurisprudence , Biomedical Research/ethics , Biomedical Research/legislation & jurisprudence , Biomedical Research/standards , Clinical Trials as Topic/standards , Humans , Information Dissemination/ethics , Information Dissemination/legislation & jurisprudence , Informed Consent/standards , United StatesABSTRACT
Surveillance plays a crucial role in public health and for obvious reasons conflicts with individual privacy. This article argues that the predominant approach to the conflict--relying on a conceptual distinction between research and practice--is problematic and then offers an alternative. It outlines a basic interests approach to public health measures and an unreasonable exercise argument, which sets forth conditions under which individuals may justifiably exercise individual privacy claims that conflict with public health goals. The view articulated is compatible with a broad range of conceptions of the value of health.
Subject(s)
Diabetes Mellitus , Disease Notification , Population Surveillance , Privacy , Public Health , Tuberculosis , Conflict of Interest , Diabetes Mellitus/economics , Diabetes Mellitus/epidemiology , Disease Notification/legislation & jurisprudence , Drug Resistance, Multiple, Bacterial , Humans , New York City/epidemiology , Population Surveillance/methods , Public Health/standards , Public Health/trends , Registries , Tuberculosis/epidemiology , United StatesSubject(s)
Dietary Fats , Feeding Behavior , Freedom , Health Promotion , Legislation, Food , Nutrition Policy , Personal Autonomy , Public Health , Wedge Argument , Choice Behavior , Food Labeling , Health Education , Health Promotion/ethics , Health Promotion/legislation & jurisprudence , Health Promotion/methods , Health Promotion/organization & administration , Health Promotion/trends , Humans , Legislation, Food/ethics , Legislation, Food/trends , Nutrition Policy/trends , Public Health/ethics , Public Health/legislation & jurisprudence , Public Health/methods , Public Health/trends , United StatesABSTRACT
We argue that while presidential candidates have the right to medical privacy, the public nature and importance of the presidency generates a moral requirement that candidates waive those rights in certain circumstances. Specifically, candidates are required to disclose information about medical conditions that are likely to seriously undermine their ability to fulfill what we call the "core functions" of the office of the presidency. This requirement exists because (1) people have the right to be governed only with their consent, (2) people's consent is meaningful only when they have access to information necessary for making informed voting decisions, (3) such information is necessary for making informed voting decisions, and (4) there are no countervailing reasons sufficiently strong to override this right. We also investigate alternative mechanisms for legally encouraging or requiring disclosure. Protecting the public's right to this information is of particular importance because of the documented history of deception and secrecy regarding the health of presidents and presidential candidates.