Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Dec 18:8:953.
doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00953. eCollection 2014.

Brain stimulation for treatment and enhancement in children: an ethical analysis

Hannah Maslen  1 , Brian D Earp  1 , Roi Cohen Kadosh  1 , Julian Savulescu  1
Affiliations

Brain stimulation for treatment and enhancement in children: an ethical analysis

Hannah Maslen et al. Front Hum Neurosci. .

Abstract

Davis (2014) called for "extreme caution" in the use of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) to treat neurological disorders in children, due to gaps in scientific knowledge. We are sympathetic to his position. However, we must also address the ethical implications of applying this technology to minors. Compensatory trade-offs associated with NIBS present a challenge to its use in children, insofar as these trade-offs have the effect of limiting the child's future options. The distinction between treatment and enhancement has some normative force here. As the intervention moves away from being a treatment toward being an enhancement-and thus toward a more uncertain weighing of the benefits, risks, and costs-considerations of the child's best interests (as judged by the parents) diminish, and the need to protect the child's (future) autonomy looms larger. NIBS for enhancement involving trade-offs should therefore be delayed, if possible, until the child reaches a state of maturity and can make an informed, personal decision. NIBS for treatment, by contrast, is permissible insofar as it can be shown to be at least as safe and effective as currently approved treatments, which are themselves justified on a best interests standard.

Keywords: autonomy; brain stimulation; cogntive enhancement; functional trade-offs; pediatric ethics.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Bostrom N. (2005). In defence of posthuman dignity. Bioethics 19, 202–214 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2005.00437.x - DOI - PubMed
    1. Brem A. K., Fried P. J., Horvath J. C., Robertson E. M., Pascual-Leone A. (2014). Is neuroenhancement by noninvasive brain stimulation a net zero-sum proposition? Neuroimage 85, 1058–1068. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.07.038 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Caldwell P. H., Murphy S. B., Butow P. N., Craig J. C. (2004). Clinical trials in children. Lancet 364, 803–811. 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)16942-0 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cohen Kadosh R., Levy N., O’Shea J., Shea N., Savulescu J. (2012). The neuroethics of non-invasive brain stimulation. Curr. Biol. 22, R108–R111. 10.1016/j.cub.2012.01.013 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Davis N. J. (2014). Transcranial stimulation of the developing brain: a plea for extreme caution. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 8:600. 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00600 - DOI - PMC - PubMed