Cargando…

Outstanding questions concerning the regulation of cognitive enhancement devices

The authors (Maslen et al., 2014) propose to regulate cognitive enhancement devices (CEDs) as medical devices. Extending medical device regulations to CEDs raises some important questions that need to be adequately addressed before it makes sense to pursue this path. A first problem concerns the def...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: De Ridder, Dirk, Vanneste, Sven, Focquaert, Farah
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5033536/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27774170
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsu024
_version_ 1782455164089663488
author De Ridder, Dirk
Vanneste, Sven
Focquaert, Farah
author_facet De Ridder, Dirk
Vanneste, Sven
Focquaert, Farah
author_sort De Ridder, Dirk
collection PubMed
description The authors (Maslen et al., 2014) propose to regulate cognitive enhancement devices (CEDs) as medical devices. Extending medical device regulations to CEDs raises some important questions that need to be adequately addressed before it makes sense to pursue this path. A first problem concerns the definition of ‘cognitive enhancement’ and ‘CEDs’. Where does treatment end and enhancement begin? Secondly, since most CEDs such as neurofeedback and transcranial direct current stimulation are currently performed by non-medical health care providers, how will this regulation impact the current practice, and which requirements need to be put in place to regulate their use? Thirdly, distributive justice issues present an obvious ethical limitation. Fourthly, if CEDs are indeed prescribed off-label similar to the off-label prescription of psychopharmacological enhancers by MDs, this will pose problems regarding a lack of sufficient knowledge and expertise due to the highly specialized nature of CEDs. And finally, are we faced with unnecessary worries and unrealistic hopes when it comes to CEDs? In sum, we propose to regulate them regarding product safety and restrict them to competent adult use including professional oversight where indicated.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5033536
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50335362016-10-21 Outstanding questions concerning the regulation of cognitive enhancement devices De Ridder, Dirk Vanneste, Sven Focquaert, Farah J Law Biosci Peer Commentary The authors (Maslen et al., 2014) propose to regulate cognitive enhancement devices (CEDs) as medical devices. Extending medical device regulations to CEDs raises some important questions that need to be adequately addressed before it makes sense to pursue this path. A first problem concerns the definition of ‘cognitive enhancement’ and ‘CEDs’. Where does treatment end and enhancement begin? Secondly, since most CEDs such as neurofeedback and transcranial direct current stimulation are currently performed by non-medical health care providers, how will this regulation impact the current practice, and which requirements need to be put in place to regulate their use? Thirdly, distributive justice issues present an obvious ethical limitation. Fourthly, if CEDs are indeed prescribed off-label similar to the off-label prescription of psychopharmacological enhancers by MDs, this will pose problems regarding a lack of sufficient knowledge and expertise due to the highly specialized nature of CEDs. And finally, are we faced with unnecessary worries and unrealistic hopes when it comes to CEDs? In sum, we propose to regulate them regarding product safety and restrict them to competent adult use including professional oversight where indicated. Oxford University Press 2014-09-19 /pmc/articles/PMC5033536/ /pubmed/27774170 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsu024 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/3.0/ 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/3.0/), 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
De Ridder, Dirk
Vanneste, Sven
Focquaert, Farah
Outstanding questions concerning the regulation of cognitive enhancement devices
title Outstanding questions concerning the regulation of cognitive enhancement devices
title_full Outstanding questions concerning the regulation of cognitive enhancement devices
title_fullStr Outstanding questions concerning the regulation of cognitive enhancement devices
title_full_unstemmed Outstanding questions concerning the regulation of cognitive enhancement devices
title_short Outstanding questions concerning the regulation of cognitive enhancement devices
title_sort outstanding questions concerning the regulation of cognitive enhancement devices
topic Peer Commentary
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5033536/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27774170
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsu024
work_keys_str_mv AT deridderdirk outstandingquestionsconcerningtheregulationofcognitiveenhancementdevices
AT vannestesven outstandingquestionsconcerningtheregulationofcognitiveenhancementdevices
AT focquaertfarah outstandingquestionsconcerningtheregulationofcognitiveenhancementdevices