| Title |
Me, Myself and My Brain Implant: Deep Brain Stimulation Raises Questions of Personal Authenticity and Alienation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Neuroethics, May 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12152-011-9115-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Felicitas Kraemer |
| Abstract |
In this article, I explore select case studies of Parkinson patients treated with deep brain stimulation (DBS) in light of the notions of alienation and authenticity. While the literature on DBS has so far neglected the issues of authenticity and alienation, I argue that interpreting these cases in terms of these concepts raises new issues for not only the philosophical discussion of neuro-ethics of DBS, but also for the psychological and medical approach to patients under DBS. In particular, I suggest that the experience of alienation and authenticity varies from patient to patient with DBS. For some, alienation can be brought about by neurointerventions because patients no longer feel like themselves. But, on the other hand, it seems alienation can also be cured by DBS as other patients experience their state of mind as authentic under treatment and retrospectively regard their former lives without stimulation as alienated. I argue that we must do further research on the relevance of authenticity and alienation to patients treated with DBS in order to gain a deeper philosophical understanding, and to develop the best evaluative criterion for the behavior of DBS patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 | 2 | 40% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 2% |
| Canada | 2 | 2% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| China | 1 | <1% |
| Luxembourg | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 106 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 23 | 20% |
| Researcher | 16 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 9% |
| Other | 22 | 19% |
| Unknown | 14 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 18% |
| Philosophy | 14 | 12% |
| Psychology | 13 | 11% |
| Neuroscience | 10 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 9% |
| Other | 25 | 22% |
| Unknown | 21 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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
#1,392,238
of 23,221,875 outputs
Outputs from Neuroethics
#48
of 417 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,744
of 110,725 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuroethics
#2
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,221,875 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 417 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 88% 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 110,725 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 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.