Cargando…

Buttressing regulation of cognitive enhancement devices with principles of harm reduction

Maslen and colleagues offer an excellent model for regulating cognitive enhancement devices (CEDs), and we largely endorse their approach of extending medical device policy to include CEDs. Maslen et al. argue that since the risks and benefits of CEDs can be identified, consumers are best placed to...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fitz, Nicholas S., Reiner, Peter B.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5033527/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27774171
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsu018
_version_ 1782455162033405952
author Fitz, Nicholas S.
Reiner, Peter B.
author_facet Fitz, Nicholas S.
Reiner, Peter B.
author_sort Fitz, Nicholas S.
collection PubMed
description Maslen and colleagues offer an excellent model for regulating cognitive enhancement devices (CEDs), and we largely endorse their approach of extending medical device policy to include CEDs. Maslen et al. argue that since the risks and benefits of CEDs can be identified, consumers are best placed to evaluate the impact of these effects on their own wellbeing: ‘experts are to assess what the risks are, the consumer how much they matter’. In principle, we agree: consumers should be allowed to decide what risks are worth taking, but the situation is somewhat more complicated, for the evidence that consumers are in a strong position to evaluate the many risks associated with CED use is lacking. Indeed, a glance at online forums on CEDs suggests that undue risks are already being taken. Importantly, given the ease with which devices can be built using easily obtainable parts, overly tough regulation will not effectively curtail use, but rather push it underground. For these reasons, we suggest that any regulatory framework be buttressed by principles of harm reduction, providing real-world users with expert-backed recommendations for safe use. We argue for the development of tools that facilitate this dialogue, while recognizing the challenges in so doing.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5033527
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50335272016-10-21 Buttressing regulation of cognitive enhancement devices with principles of harm reduction Fitz, Nicholas S. Reiner, Peter B. J Law Biosci Peer Commentary Maslen and colleagues offer an excellent model for regulating cognitive enhancement devices (CEDs), and we largely endorse their approach of extending medical device policy to include CEDs. Maslen et al. argue that since the risks and benefits of CEDs can be identified, consumers are best placed to evaluate the impact of these effects on their own wellbeing: ‘experts are to assess what the risks are, the consumer how much they matter’. In principle, we agree: consumers should be allowed to decide what risks are worth taking, but the situation is somewhat more complicated, for the evidence that consumers are in a strong position to evaluate the many risks associated with CED use is lacking. Indeed, a glance at online forums on CEDs suggests that undue risks are already being taken. Importantly, given the ease with which devices can be built using easily obtainable parts, overly tough regulation will not effectively curtail use, but rather push it underground. For these reasons, we suggest that any regulatory framework be buttressed by principles of harm reduction, providing real-world users with expert-backed recommendations for safe use. We argue for the development of tools that facilitate this dialogue, while recognizing the challenges in so doing. Oxford University Press 2014-09-26 /pmc/articles/PMC5033527/ /pubmed/27774171 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsu018 Text en © The Author 2014. Published by Duke University School of Law, Harvard Law School, Oxford University Press, and Stanford Law School. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.
spellingShingle Peer Commentary
Fitz, Nicholas S.
Reiner, Peter B.
Buttressing regulation of cognitive enhancement devices with principles of harm reduction
title Buttressing regulation of cognitive enhancement devices with principles of harm reduction
title_full Buttressing regulation of cognitive enhancement devices with principles of harm reduction
title_fullStr Buttressing regulation of cognitive enhancement devices with principles of harm reduction
title_full_unstemmed Buttressing regulation of cognitive enhancement devices with principles of harm reduction
title_short Buttressing regulation of cognitive enhancement devices with principles of harm reduction
title_sort buttressing regulation of cognitive enhancement devices with principles of harm reduction
topic Peer Commentary
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5033527/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27774171
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsu018
work_keys_str_mv AT fitznicholass buttressingregulationofcognitiveenhancementdeviceswithprinciplesofharmreduction
AT reinerpeterb buttressingregulationofcognitiveenhancementdeviceswithprinciplesofharmreduction