Charles E. Binkley, MD, Michael S. Politz, MA, and Brian P. Green, PhD
If the safe-and-effective standard for judging devices’ potential as therapy or enhancement is inadequate, one might wonder whether BCI regulation should be overseen by the FDA.
AMA J Ethics. 2021;23(9):E745-749. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2021.745.
Dr Charles Binkley joins Ethics Talk to discuss his article, coauthored with Michael Politz and Dr Brian Green: "Who, If Not the FDA, Should Regulate Implantable Brain-Computer Interface Devices?"
When deciding whether to offer deep brain stimulation earlier than usual for Parkinson disease, it is important to consider not only the patient’s autonomy but also the validity of the evidence and concepts of harm that are being used to form practice policies.
Because many complementary and alternative medicine therapies for autism are based on misguided notions of its cause and lack support from scientifically sound studies, physicians should steer parents away from these practices and toward safe, effective, and evidence-based interventions.
AMA J Ethics. 2015;17(4):375-380. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2015.17.4.sect2-1504
There is evidence that some complementary and alternative treatments improve physiological abnormalities in autism and thus hold promise for improving symptoms.
AMA J Ethics. 2015;17(4):369-374. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2015.17.4.sect1-1504.
Neuroscience's associations between localized brain activity and specific cognitive tasks is not sufficient evidence for rejecting the notion of free will and absolving individuals of responsibility for their behavior.
When a patient requests an unfamiliar treatment, the physician should not hesitate to research it before giving a categorical reply about its safety or efficacy.