Neuroethical implications of focused ultrasound for neuropsychiatric illness.

BACKGROUND: MR-guided focused ultrasound is a promising intervention for treatment-resistant mental illness, and merits contextualized ethical exploration in relation to more extensive ethical literature regarding other psychosurgical and neuromodulation treatment options for this patient population. To our knowledge, this topic has not yet been explored in the published literature. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this paper is to review and discuss in detail the neuroethical implications of MR-guided focused ultrasound for neuropsychiatric illness as an emerging treatment modality. METHODS: Due to the lack of published literature on the topic, the approach involved a detailed survey and review of technical and medical literature relevant to focused ultrasound and established ethical issues related to alternative treatment options for patients with treatment-resistant, severe and persistent mental illness. The manuscript is structured according to thematic and topical findings. RESULTS: This technology has potential benefits for patients suffering with severe mental illness, compared with established alternatives. The balance of technical, neuroscientific and clinical considerations should inform ethical deliberations. The nascent literature base, nuances in legal classification and permissibility depending upon jurisdiction, influences of past ethical issues associated with alternative treatments, tone and framing in media articles, and complexity of clinical trials all influence ethical assessment and evaluations of multiple stakeholders. Recommendations for future research are provided based on these factors. CONCLUSION: Salient ethical inquiry should be further explored by researchers, clinicians, and ethicists in a nuanced manner methodologically, one which is informed by past and present ethical issues related to alternative treatment options, broader psychiatric treatment frameworks, pragmatic implementation challenges, intercultural considerations, and patients' ethical concerns.

An analysis of studies on piezoelectric surgery in the oral and craniomaxillofacial region with regard to human subject protection and financial conflicts.

This retrospective, observational study investigated whether published studies on the use of piezoelectric surgery (PS) in the oral and craniomaxillofacial region fulfilled the requirements of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and the Declaration of Helsinki (DoH) with respect to human subject protections (HSP) and disclosure of financial conflicts (FC). A Medline/PUBMED search was performed in April 2008 to identify all clinical studies on PS, published in English, French and German. Disclosure of HSP (obtaining ethical approval and subjects' informed consent) and FC mentioned in the retrieved articles were analysed. 29 clinical articles were identified in 18 journals, of which 14 journals (78%) required the disclosure of both HSP and FC. Ethical approval was documented in two studies (7%); patient consent was reported in four publications (14%). Four articles disclosed no FC. 21 reports (72%) mentioned neither HSP nor FC. The relationships between funding source and study outcomes could not be identified. Most studies on the use of PS hardly adhered to the regulations recommended by the ICMJE and DoH, and do not mention HSP and FC, indicating the study results with a high degree of suspicion. It is recommended that oral and craniomaxillofacial surgery journals adhere strictly to these regulations because they carry a heavy responsibility regarding the scientific integrity of publications in this specialty.