Invasive Neurotechnology: A Study of the Concept of Invasiveness in Neuroethics

Collins, Benjamin; Klein, Eran

doi:10.1007/s12152-023-09518-1

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These interventions are often considered to be non-invasive, though we suspect that they may sometimes be taken as such because speakers are relying on the standard account, and the corresponding conception of physical invasiveness. [ v ] In a recent study on the use of 'invasive' in neuroethical debates about neurotechnology, Collins and Klein 38 claim that neuroethicists seem to mainly be sticking to a physical notion of invasiveness-which, as they describe it, may be captured by the standard account-and for this reason may not be thinking of such interventions as invasive. Referencing Bluhm et al, 3 they suggest that in doing so, neuroethicists may be missing out on non-physical forms of invasiveness that end users of such technologies take to be important (see, especially, 38 pp8-11).…”

Section: Non-physical Invasivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

What makes a medical intervention invasive?

De Marco,

Simons,

Forsberg

et al. 2023

J Med Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The classification of medical interventions as either invasive or non-invasive is commonly regarded to be morally important. On the most commonly endorsed account of invasiveness, a medical intervention is invasive if and only if it involves either breaking the skin (‘incision’) or inserting an object into the body (‘insertion’). Building on recent discussions of the concept of invasiveness, we show that this standard account fails to capture three aspects of existing usage of the concept of invasiveness in relation to medical interventions—namely, (1) usage implying that invasiveness comes in degrees, (2) that the invasiveness of an intervention can depend on the characteristics of the salient alternative interventions, and (3) that medical interventions can be invasive in non-physical ways. We then offer the beginnings of a revised account that, we argue, is able to capture a wider range of existing usage. Central to our account is a distinction between two properties:basic invasivenessandthreshold invasiveness. We end by assessing what the standard account gets right, and what more needs to be done to complete our schematic account.

show abstract

Section: Non-physical Invasivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

What makes a medical intervention invasive?

De Marco,

Simons,

Forsberg

et al. 2023

J Med Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Who does Neuroethics Scholarship Address, and What Does it Recommend? A Content Analysis of Selected Abstracts from the International Neuroethics Society Annual Meetings

Wei,

Choi,

Sullivan

et al. 2024

Neuroethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Much neuroethics literature concludes with a set of normative recommendations. While these recommendations can be a helpful way of summarizing a proposal for a future direction, some have recently argued that ethics scholarship has devoted insufficient attention to considerations of audience and real-world applications. To date, however, while scholars have conducted topic analyses of neuroethics literature, to our knowledge no study has evaluated who neuroethics scholarship addresses and what it recommends. The objective of the present study therefore was to provide a preliminary characterization of recommendations offered in neuroethics scholarship and an assessment of their target audiences. Rather than attempting to demarcate what constitutes “neuroethics scholarship,” we analyzed text that authors’ had self-identified as being neuroethics-related: abstracts presented at the International Neuroethics Society (INS) annual meetings and published as top abstracts in AJOB Neuroscience in the last decade (2011–2020). We found that a majority of abstracts utilized conceptual methods (62.2%) and provided conceptual recommendations (68%). Roughly 77% of all abstracts did not explicitly address a target audience, yet nearly all of these were implicitly directed at other scholars. The remainder specified a target audience of scholars (12.2%), regulators (6.7%), healthcare providers (6.7%) and industry (2.6%). Only a subset of abstracts provided practical or policy recommendations (19.7%). Of those, the majority (61.5%) did not specify a target audience. Among the subset with actionable recommendations, a clarification of target audience may help increase the impact.

show abstract