The Effects of Closed-Loop Medical Devices on the Autonomy and Accountability of Persons and Systems.

Closed-loop medical devices such as brain-computer interfaces are an emerging and rapidly advancing neurotechnology. The target patients for brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) are often severely paralyzed, and thus particularly vulnerable in terms of personal autonomy, decisionmaking capacity, and agency. Here we analyze the effects of closed-loop medical devices on the autonomy and accountability of both persons (as patients or research participants) and neurotechnological closed-loop medical systems. We show that although BCIs can strengthen patient autonomy by preserving or restoring communicative abilities and/or motor control, closed-loop devices may also create challenges for moral and legal accountability. We advocate the development of a comprehensive ethical and legal framework to address the challenges of emerging closed-loop neurotechnologies like BCIs and stress the centrality of informed consent and refusal as a means to foster accountability. We propose the creation of an international neuroethics task force with members from medical neuroscience, neuroengineering, computer science, medical law, and medical ethics, as well as representatives of patient advocacy groups and the public.

[1]  Gytis Baranauskas,et al.  What limits the performance of current invasive brain machine interfaces? , 2014, Front. Syst. Neurosci..

[2]  Nicolas Y. Masse,et al.  Reach and grasp by people with tetraplegia using a neurally controlled robotic arm , 2012, Nature.

[3]  Noel Sharkey,et al.  The Ethical Frontiers of Robotics , 2008, Science.

[4]  F. Gilbert,et al.  A Threat to Autonomy? The Intrusion of Predictive Brain Implants , 2015, AJOB neuroscience.

[5]  Jonathan R. Wolpaw,et al.  Ethical Issues in BCI Research , 2012 .

[6]  Christian E. Elger,et al.  Novel techniques for automated seizure registration: Patients' wants and needs , 2015, Epilepsy & Behavior.

[7]  M. C. Reid,et al.  Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator deactivation at the end of life: a physician survey. , 2009, American heart journal.

[8]  E. Foncke,et al.  Pathological gambling after bilateral subthalamic nucleus stimulation in Parkinson disease , 2006, Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry.

[9]  P D Cleary,et al.  What do patients value in their hospital care? An empirical perspective on autonomy centred bioethics , 2003, Journal of medical ethics.

[10]  I. Soltesz,et al.  Future of seizure prediction and intervention: closing the loop. , 2015, Journal of clinical neurophysiology : official publication of the American Electroencephalographic Society.

[11]  Tobias Kaufmann,et al.  Long-term independent brain-computer interface home use improves quality of life of a patient in the locked-in state: a case study. , 2015, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[12]  Stephen Fairclough,et al.  A Closed-Loop Perspective on Symbiotic Human-Computer Interaction , 2015, Symbiotic.

[13]  Peter Norvig,et al.  Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach , 1995 .

[14]  T. Beauchamp,et al.  Principles of biomedical ethics , 1991 .

[15]  B. Allison,et al.  The Asilomar Survey: Stakeholders’ Opinions on Ethical Issues Related to Brain-Computer Interfacing , 2011, Neuroethics.

[16]  K. Suzanne Barber,et al.  Dynamic adaptive autonomy in multi-agent systems , 2000, J. Exp. Theor. Artif. Intell..

[17]  S. Chambers,et al.  DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRATIC THEORY , 2003 .

[18]  A. Musschenga,et al.  Empirical ethics, context-sensitivity, and contextualism. , 2005, The Journal of medicine and philosophy.

[19]  P. Friedman,et al.  The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator: state-of-the-art review , 2017, European heart journal.

[20]  Claudia Landwehr.  Democratic and technocratic policy deliberation , 2010 .

[21]  W. Maisel.  Safety Issues Involving Medical Devices. Implications of Recent Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Malfunctions , 2005 .

[22]  C. De Laet,et al.  Legal and organizational aspects of remote cardiac monitoring: the example of implantable cardioverter defibrillators. , 2012, Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[23]  Nick Bostrom,et al.  Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies , 2014 .

[24]  L. Miller,et al.  Restoring sensorimotor function through intracortical interfaces: progress and looming challenges , 2014, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[25]  J. J. Fins.  Rights Come to Mind: Brain Injury, Ethics, and the Struggle for Consciousness , 2015 .

[26]  Steven Laureys,et al.  Brain–computer interfacing in disorders of consciousness , 2012, Brain injury.

[27]  L. Lagae,et al.  The challenges and innovations for therapy in children with epilepsy , 2014, Nature Reviews Neurology.

[28]  Alejandro Hernández Arieta,et al.  Body Schema in Robotics: A Review , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Autonomous Mental Development.

[29]  Gianmarco Veruggio,et al.  Roboethics: Social and Ethical Implications of Robotics , 2008, Springer Handbook of Robotics.

[30]  R. Goebel,et al.  Brain–computer interfaces for communication with nonresponsive patients , 2012, Annals of neurology.

[31]  F. Mormann,et al.  Seizure prediction: the long and winding road. , 2007, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[32]  J. Bradshaw,et al.  Beyond Asimov : The Three Laws of Responsible Robotics , 2009 .

[33]  H. Flor,et al.  A spelling device for the paralysed , 1999, Nature.

[34]  Jens Clausen,et al.  Ethical brain stimulation – neuroethics of deep brain stimulation in research and clinical practice , 2010, The European journal of neuroscience.

[35]  Charles Spence,et al.  Reaching with alien limbs: Visual exposure to prosthetic hands in a mirror biases proprioception without accompanying illusions of ownership , 2006, Perception & psychophysics.

[36]  Ad Aertsen,et al.  Invasive brain–machine interfaces: a survey of paralyzed patients’ attitudes, knowledge and methods of information retrieval , 2015, Journal of neural engineering.

[37]  S. Silvoni,et al.  Brain-Computer Interface in Stroke: A Review of Progress , 2011, Clinical EEG and neuroscience.

[38]  D. Mathews.  Deep brain stimulation, personal identity and policy , 2011, International review of psychiatry.

[39]  B. Bejjani,et al.  Neurosurgery in Parkinson disease: A distressed mind in a repaired body? , 2007, Neurology.

[40]  F. Cincotti,et al.  Developing brain-computer interfaces from a user-centered perspective: Assessing the needs of persons with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, caregivers, and professionals. , 2015, Applied ergonomics.

[41]  Rino Falcone,et al.  The human in the loop of a delegated agent: the theory of adjustable social autonomy , 2001, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A.

[42]  E. Shuster.  Fifty years later: the significance of the Nuremberg Code. , 1997, The New England journal of medicine.

[43]  F. Gilbert,et al.  The burden of normality: from ‘chronically ill’ to ‘symptom free’. New ethical challenges for deep brain stimulation postoperative treatment , 2012, Journal of Medical Ethics.