Neuroethics

Rees and Rose argue that “neuroethics” is a neologism that appeared only at the beginning of the 21st century, mainly due to the oral and written communication of ethics with philosophers. ^[4] As Racine points out, this term was coined by Harvard physician Annaliza Pontius in 1973 in an article entitled “Neuroethics of Walking in a Newborn” for “Perceptual and Motor Skills”, ^{[5] [6]} which in 1993 reprinted the term in article for the journal “Psychological Report”, which is often mistakenly referred to as the first article with a headline containing the word “neuroethics”. Until 1993, American neurologist Ronald Cranford used the term. ^[7] Illes records the use of the term in the 1989 and 1991 scientific literature. ^[8] Writer William Safir is widely credited with saying that the word acquired its current meaning in 2002, defining it as “studying what is right and wrong, good and bad in treating, perfecting or unwanted invasion and troubling manipulations with the human brain ". ^[9]

In 2002, an international conference called “Neuroethics: Mapping the Field” was held. The participants represented various branches of science, including neurology, bioethics, philosophy, law, genetics, and journalism. ^{[10] [11]} In 2007, the American Journal of Bioethics (AJOB) officially announced the launch of AJOB Neuroscience, which is published regularly and fully dedicated to neuroethics.

Neuroethics includes a wide range of issues: ^[12]

• Effects on the brain
  • Surgical interventions in the brain ( psychosurgery )
    • One of the ethical contradictions arising from the connection of the brain and consciousness in neurosurgery is the preservation of the patient's health to the detriment, perhaps, of his old personality structure as a result of a brain operation. ^[13]
    • Most organ donors are neurosurgical patients who have been diagnosed with brain death . ^[14]
  • Transcranial magnetic stimulation , micropolarization , TES-therapy
  • Pharmacological effects on cognitive processes ( psychopharmacology ) are some types of doping , the question of how permissible cognitive freedom is .
    • Anjan Chatterjee, a neurologist at the University of Pennsylvania , claims that Western medicine is on the verge of a revolution, as a result of which people can improve their memory and attention through pharmacological means. Jacob Appel, a bioethics specialist at Brown University , expressed concern about the possibility that employers would impose such drugs on their employees. ^{[15] [16]}
• The problems created by the development of neurovisualization , which in particular cases can distinguish a lie more accurately than a polygraph — the degree of permissible use of technology to comply with the principles of privacy and individual sovereignty :
  • How permissible neuromarketing
  • Neurorealism is the idea that something is real only when it can be measured (that is, the person who says that he has pain is “really” sick, if only this symptom is supported by the results of brain scans). ^{[17] [18]} The case of phantom limbs demonstrates the inadequacy of this approach.
• Impact on memory
  • It is assumed that propranolol , an FDA-approved drug, effectively dulls the painful effects of traumatic memories if taken within 6 hours after an event occurs. ^[19] Regardless of whether it is ethical to erase the patient’s memory completely or partially, this topic is certainly becoming more relevant as this technology is being improved in our society. ^[20]
• Stem cell therapy
  • The primary ethical dilemma that arises in stem cell research concerns the source of embryonic stem cells (ESCs). Usually it is the inner cell mass of the blastosphere, which may have the potential for the emergence of human life. ^[21] According to a study conducted by developmental biologists, 75 to 80% of embryos created as a result of sexual intercourse are naturally lost before they can become embryos. ^[22]
  • Stem cells are useful in treating certain neurodegenerative diseases, such as Parkinson's disease , ^[23] in particular, a study conducted in 2011 showed that induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) can be used to aid in the research and treatment of Parkinson's. Animal studies have shown that use of iPSCs can improve motor skills and dopamine release in subjects with Parkinson's disease. ^[24] For research, animal brain cells are damaged in a way that mimics the disease. Transplantation of hematopoietic stem cells in the treatment of patients with multiple sclerosis may carry a high risk of rejection, which, if there are other treatments for multiple sclerosis, outweighs the benefits of this method. ^[25]
• Patients with impaired consciousness
  • Recent research results using functional magnetic resonance imaging have changed our view of vegetative patients . Brain imagery has shown that aspects of emotional processing, language understanding and even awareness can persist in patients whose behavior suggests a vegetative state. If so, then it is unethical for a third party to dictate the life and future of such a patient. ^[26]
• Neurological procedures
  • In the study of new drugs can be installed side effect of changes in behavior and personality. Although personal identification is a difficult question, patients may lose such “parts of themselves” as memory or mood as a result of the use of drugs. On the other hand, when testing new drugs, there is a question of sorting patients - on the one hand, it is necessary to choose such patients so that the treatment will help them as much as possible, on the other hand, it is necessary to conduct the best possible study so that future patients are not affected.
• Neuroscience and free will
  • If all human actions are caused by processes in his brain, which, in turn, is the product of genes and our life experience, then how can we be responsible for our actions? Neuropsychiatry evaluations have become more widely used in the criminal justice system, and neuroimaging technologies have provided us with a more direct view of brain injuries. Neurovisual data may indicate that there is no free will, and every action that a person performs is simply a product of past actions and biological impulses that are beyond our control. ^{[27] The} question of whether personal autonomy is compatible with the ethics of neurobiology is central to neuroethics. ^[28] However, there is some controversy as to whether personal autonomy entails the concept of “free will” or is a “moral and political” principle separate from metaphysical difficulties. ^[29]

Martha Farah, director of the Center for Cognitive Neurophysiology at the University of Pennsylvania, wrote a book called Neuroethics, in which she claims that poverty destroys the brain and prevents the individual from gaining material well-being.

• Bioethics