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...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
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 |