AAAS Dialogue on Science, Ethics and Religion

Events: AAAS Annual Meeting Symposia

Ethics of Neuroscience: Lack of Consciousness and Assessment of Personhood
18 Februrary 2006

Organizers:

• Stephanie Bird, Science and Engineering Ethics
• Jim Miller, AAAS Science and Policy Programs

Neurological conditions such as persistent vegetative state (PVS), coma, and other minimally conscious states in which individuals are unable to express themselves present serious ethical, legal and social policy challenges. The permanence of the condition and the extent to which outward appearance reflects mental activity remain unclear and in some quarters hotly contested. As neuroscience research discovers and reveals the mechanisms of brain function and factors that influence or even determine higher brain function and behavior, it both offers insights into, and potential tools for addressing, some of our most compelling dilemmas. These developments in neuroscience research and technology also raise a number of ethical, legal and social issues and concerns. This session will explore the neuroimaging of altered neurological states and some of the inherent and related ethical issues from a wide range of perspectives.

Moderator

• Jim Miller, AAAS Science and Public Policy

Speakers

• Stephanie Bird, Science and Engineering Ethics
  Is Anyone There? Protecting Those Who Cannot Speak for Themselves
• Martha Farah, University of Pennsylvania
  Detecting Consciousness: The Limits of Science and Technology
• Judy Illes, Stanford University
  Ethics of Predicting Brain Function and Disease Using Neuroimaging

Discussants

• Nancey Murphy, Fuller Theological Seminary
  Judeo-Christian Perspectives on Brain Function and Personhood
• Francisca Cho, Georgetown University
  Buddhist Perspectives on Brain Function and Personhood

 

Available Abstracts

Predicting Brain Function and Disease Using Neuroimaging
Author: Judy Illes, Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics

Along with advances in neuroimaging that are giving us new knowledge about mind and behavior and ever more precise information for diagnosis, frontier neurotechnologies are yielding a new potential to predict behavior, consciousness and pathology. In very different conditions, common neuroethical issues for prediction arise. Consider, for example, the minimally conscious state, Alzheimer’s Disease in its preclinical asymptomatic form, and addiction, sociopathy, and suicide in adolescents. In all these cases, science and society are faced with compelling challenges such as:

• What do functional neuroimaging data tell us about an individual?
• What do neuroimaging findings change about a person in terms of what the person and others can under such conditions?
• What populations are appropriate to test in research and in practice? How do scientists protect the most vulnerable?
• How shall scientists and health care providers handle false negatives or mitigate the consequences of false positives?
• What methods of communication are most effective for families?
• How can society and the health care system handle new resources and clinical ethics demands?
• How can education about new capabilities and public engagement best be achieved?

Whether a family is seeking assistance in making end-of-life decisions for a loved one, a national team is looking for the perfect athlete who will prevail under conditions of intense competition in the last moments of a final sporting event, or a couple is seeking to adopt a “perfect” baby, predictive imaging is a high-risk undertaking. Technological complexity, individual variability, culture, and values all factor in to the equation. They will be the focus of this presentation, and must be contemplated with extreme care as neuroimaging capabilities are moved from the laboratory to the clinical bedside and real-world setting.

Buddhist Perspectives on Brain Function and Personhood
Author: Francisca Cho, Georgetown University

Although Buddhism takes a central interest in consciousness, it does not privilege it as the basis of personhood. Therefore PVS and other minimally conscious states do not reduce one's personhood any more than blindness or a loss of a limb. The Buddhist distinction between life and death conforms to a biological perspective that pivots on basic brainstem functions. When it comes to the ethics of medical treatment, however, Buddhist ethics does not countenance the position that life should be preserved at all cost. It makes a subtle but substantial distinction between euthanasia, which entails an unacceptable intent to bring about death, on the one hand, and legitimate actions that will predictably result in death, on the other.