Is There a Need for Clinical Neuroskepticism?
Tóm tắt
Clinical neuroethics and neuroskepticism are recent entrants to the vocabulary of neuroethics. Clinical neuroethics has been used to distinguish problems of clinical relevance arising from developments in brain science from problems arising in neuroscience research proper. Neuroskepticism has been proposed as a counterweight to claims about the value and likely implications of developments in neuroscience. These two emergent streams of thought intersect within the practice of neurology. Neurologists face many traditional problems in bioethics, like end of life care in the persistent vegetative state, determination of capacity in progressive dementia, and requests for assisted suicide in cognition-preserving neurodegenerative disease (like amyotrophic lateral sclerosis). Neurologists also look to be at the forefront of downstream clinical applications of neuroscience, like pharmacological enhancement of mental life. At the same time, the practice of neurology, concerned primarily with the structure, function, and treatment of the nervous system, has historically fostered a kind of skeptical attitude toward its own subject matter. Not all problems that appear primarily neurological are primarily neurological. This disciplinary skepticism is generally clinical in orientation and limited in scope. The rise of interest in clinical neuroethics and in neuroskepticsim generally suggests a possible broader application. The clinical skepticism of neurology provides impetus for thinking about the appropriate role for skepticism in clinical areas of neuroethics. After a brief review of neuroskepticism and clinical neuroethics, a taxonomy of clinical neuroskepticism is offered and reasons why a stronger rather than weaker form of clinical neuroskepticism is currently warranted.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Baum, L.F., W.W. Denslow, and M.P. Hearn. 1983. The Wizard of Oz, 100. New York: Schocken Books.
Dewey, J., L.A. Hickman, and T.M. Alexander. 1998. The Essential Dewey. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Illes, J. 2006. Neuroethics: Defining the issues in theory, practice, and policy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Levy, N. 2007. Neuroethics. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Trout, J.D. 2008. Seduction without cause: Uncovering explanatory neurophilia. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 12: 281–282.
Bernat, J.L. 2008. Ethical issues in neurology. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Illes, J. 2003. Neuroethics in a new era of neuroimaging. AJNR. American Journal of Neuroradiology 24: 1739–1741.
Robert, J.S. 2007. Gene maps, brain scans, and psychiatric nosology. Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics: CQ: The international journal of healthcare ethics committees 16: 209–218.
Klitzman, R. 2006. Clinicians, patients, and the brain. In Neuroethics: Defining the issues in theory, practice, and policy, ed. J. Illes, 229–244. New York: Oxford University Press.
Illes, J. 2009. Neurologisms. The American Journal of Bioethics 9: 1.
Lee, N., A.J. Broderick, and L. Chamberlain. 2007. What is “neuromarketing”? A discussion and agenda for future research. International journal of psychophysiology: Official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology 63: 199–204.
Cinzia, D.D., and G. Vittorio. 2009. Neuroaesthetics: A review. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 19: 682–687.
Taylor, J.S. 1995. Neurolaw: Towards a new medical jurisprudence. Brain injury 9: 745–751.
Scruton, R. “More than meets the MRI,” The Sunday Times, Jul. 2009.
Lippman, A. 1994. The genetic construction of prenatal testing: Choice, consent, or conformity for women? In Women and prenatal testing: Facing the challenges of genetic technology, ed. K.H. Rothenberg and E.J. Thomson, 9–34 Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
Marks, J.H. 2010. A Neuroskeptic’s guide to neuroethics and national security. American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience 1: 4–12.
Szasz, T. 1960. The myth of mental illness. The American Psychologist 15: 113–118.
Parens, E. and J. Johnston. 2007. Does it make sense to speak of neuroethics? Three problems with keying ethics to hot new science and technology. EMBO reports 8: S61–4.
Wilfond, B.S., and V. Ravitsky. 2005. On the proliferation of bioethics sub-disciplines: Do we really need “genethics” and “neuroethics”? The American Journal of Bioethics 5: 20–21.
Roskies, A. 2008. Neuroimaging and inferential distance. Neuroethics 1: 19–30.
Singer, P. 2005. Ethics and intuitions. The Journal of Ethics 9: 331–352.
Raine, A. 2008. From genes to brain to antisocial behavior. Current Directions in Psychological Science 17: 323–328.
Meegan, D.V. 2008. Neuroimaging techniques for memory detection: scientific, ethical, and legal issues. The American Journal of Bioethics 8: 9–20.
Fins, J.J. 2008. A leg to stand on: Sir William Osler and Wilder Penfield’s “neuroethics”. The American Journal of Bioethics 8:37–46.
Strong, C. 2000. Specified principlism: What is it, and does it really resolve cases better than casuistry? The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 25: 323–341.
Marcus, S., Ed. 2002. Neuroethics. Mapping the Field. New York: Dana Press.
Greely, H.T. 2006. Neuroethics and ELSI: Similarities and differences. Minnesota Journal of Law, Science, and Technology 7:599–637.
Steinbock, B., J. Arras, and A.J. London. 2009. Ethical issues in modern medicine: Contemporary readings in bioethics. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Fodor, J. 1974. Special sciences. Synthese 28: 97–115.
Kripke, S. 1977. Identity and necessity. In Naming, Necessity, and Natural Kinds, ed. S. Schwartz, 66–101. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Greene, J.D., R.B. Sommerville, L.E. Nystrom, J.M. Darley, and J.D. Cohen. 2001. An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science 293: 2105–2108.
Knutson, K.M., L. Mah, C.F. Manly, and J. Grafman. 2007. Neural correlates of automatic beliefs about gender and race. Human Brain Mapping 28: 915–930.
Young, L., and M. Koenigs. 2007. Investigating emotion in moral cognition: A review of evidence from functional neuroimaging and neuropsychology. British Medical Bulletin 84: 69–79.
Hsu, M., C. Anen, and S.R. Quartz. 2008. The right and the good: Distributive justice and neural encoding of equity and efficiency. Science 320: 1092–1095.
Kon, A.A. 2009. The role of empirical research in bioethics. The American journal of bioethics: AJOB 9: 59–65.
Churchland, P.S. 1989. Neurophilosophy: Toward a unified science of the mind-brain. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chambers, T. 1999. The fiction of bioethics: Cases as literary texts. New York: Routledge.
Cranford, R.E. 1989. The neurologist as ethics consultant and as a member of the institutional ethics committee. The neuroethicist. Neurologic Clinics 7: 697–713.
Hallett, M. 2007. Volitional control of movement: The physiology of free will. Clinical neurophysiology: Official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology 118: 1179–1192.
Wallace, R.J. 1999. Addiction as defect of the will: Some philosophical reflections. Law and Philosophy 18(6): 621–654.
DeGrazia, D. 2005. Human identity and bioethics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Chatterjee, A. 2006. The promise and predicament of cosmetic neurology. Journal of Medical Ethics 32: 110–113.