| Title |
Health, Happiness and Human Enhancement—Dealing with Unexpected Effects of Deep Brain Stimulation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Neuroethics, January 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12152-011-9097-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Maartje Schermer |
| Abstract |
Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) is a treatment involving the implantation of electrodes into the brain. Presently, it is used for neurological disorders like Parkinson's disease, but indications are expanding to psychiatric disorders such as depression, addiction and Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD). Theoretically, it may be possible to use DBS for the enhancement of various mental functions. This article discusses a case of an OCD patient who felt very happy with the DBS treatment, even though her symptoms were not reduced. First, it is explored if the argument that 'doctors are not in the business of trading happiness', as used by her psychiatrist to justify his discontinuation of the DBS treatment, holds. The relationship between enhancement and the goals of medicine is discussed and it is concluded that even though the goals of medicine do not set strict limits and may even include certain types of enhancement, there are some good reasons for limiting the kind of things doctors are required or allowed to do. Next, the case is discussed from the perspective of beneficence and autonomy. It is argued that making people feel good is not the same as enhancing their well-being and that it is unlikely-though not absolutely impossible-that the well-being of the happy OCD patient is really improved. Finally, some concerns regarding the autonomy of a request made under the influence of DBS treatment are considered. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Comoros | 1 | 17% |
| France | 1 | 17% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 17% |
| United States | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 83% |
| Scientists | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 125 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| China | 1 | <1% |
| Korea, Republic of | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 117 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 26 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 20 | 16% |
| Researcher | 17 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 8% |
| Other | 20 | 16% |
| Unknown | 16 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 31 | 25% |
| Neuroscience | 14 | 11% |
| Psychology | 13 | 10% |
| Philosophy | 13 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 6% |
| Other | 25 | 20% |
| Unknown | 21 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 December 2016.
All research outputs
#2,000,582
of 25,709,917 outputs
Outputs from Neuroethics
#84
of 442 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,768
of 196,036 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuroethics
#2
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,709,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 442 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 196,036 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.