| Title |
Did My Brain Implant Make Me Do It? Questions Raised by DBS Regarding Psychological Continuity, Responsibility for Action and Mental Competence
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Neuroethics, September 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12152-010-9093-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Laura Klaming, Pim Haselager |
| Abstract |
Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is a well-accepted treatment for movement disorders and is currently explored as a treatment option for various neurological and psychiatric disorders. Several case studies suggest that DBS may, in some patients, influence mental states critical to personality to such an extent that it affects an individual's personal identity, i.e. the experience of psychological continuity, of persisting through time as the same person. Without questioning the usefulness of DBS as a treatment option for various serious and treatment refractory conditions, the potential of disruptions of psychological continuity raises a number of ethical and legal questions. An important question is that of legal responsibility if DBS induced changes in a patient's personality result in damage caused by undesirable or even deviant behavior. Disruptions in psychological continuity can in some cases also have an effect on an individual's mental competence. This capacity is necessary in order to obtain informed consent to start, continue or stop treatment, and it is therefore not only important from an ethical point of view but also has legal consequences. Taking the existing literature and the Dutch legal system as a starting point, the present paper discusses the implications of DBS induced disruptions in psychological continuity for a patient's responsibility for action and competence of decision and raises a number of questions that need further research. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 32 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 6 | 19% |
| Netherlands | 3 | 9% |
| Switzerland | 2 | 6% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 6% |
| Ireland | 1 | 3% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 3% |
| Brazil | 1 | 3% |
| Greece | 1 | 3% |
| Spain | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 13 | 41% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 26 | 81% |
| Scientists | 5 | 16% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 166 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 6 | 4% |
| Netherlands | 2 | 1% |
| United States | 2 | 1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Poland | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 152 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 31 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 29 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 26 | 16% |
| Researcher | 17 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 15 | 9% |
| Other | 23 | 14% |
| Unknown | 25 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 27 | 16% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 14% |
| Neuroscience | 19 | 11% |
| Philosophy | 15 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 12 | 7% |
| Other | 34 | 20% |
| Unknown | 35 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 53. 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 28 February 2022.
All research outputs
#816,605
of 25,761,363 outputs
Outputs from Neuroethics
#14
of 443 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,150
of 99,521 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuroethics
#1
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,761,363 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 443 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 99,521 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them