Forthcoming ethical issues in biological psychiatry

World Journal of Biological Psychiatry

Volumn 6, Issue SUPPL. 2, 2005, Pages 56-64

  Helmchen, Hanfried ^a  

^a CHARITÉ UNIVERSITÄTSMEDIZIN BERLIN   (Germany)

Author keywords

Clinical research; Enhancement; Ethical dilemmas; Genetic prediction; Neurotechniques

Indexed keywords

NEUROLEPTIC AGENT; PLACEBO; PSYCHOTROPIC AGENT;

BRAIN FUNCTION; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPUTER SYSTEM; CONFIDENTIALITY; CULTURAL FACTOR; DEMOGRAPHY; DEVELOPING COUNTRY; ECONOMIC ASPECT; GENETIC RISK; HEALTH BEHAVIOR; HEALTH CARE ACCESS; HEALTH CARE FINANCING; HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HUMAN; HUNTINGTON CHOREA; IMPLANTATION; INFORMED CONSENT; JUSTICE; MARKETING; MEDICAL EDUCATION; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; NERVE CELL PLASTICITY; NERVOUS SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT; NERVOUS TISSUE; NEUROSCIENCE; PERSONALITY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PREDICTION; PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT; PSYCHIATRIST; PSYCHIATRY; PSYCHOSIS; PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE; REVIEW; SOCIAL ASPECT; SOCIETY; TARDIVE DYSKINESIA; WELLBEING;

BIOLOGICAL PSYCHIATRY; BIOMEDICAL ENHANCEMENT; ETHICS, MEDICAL; FORECASTING; GENETIC RESEARCH; GENETIC SCREENING; HUMANS; NEUROSCIENCES; SOCIAL JUSTICE;

EID: 23844465592     PISSN: 15622975     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15622970510030081     Document Type: Review

References (30)

1. Angell M. 2000. Is academic medicine for sale? (Editorial). New Eng J Med 342(20):1516-1518.
2. Appelbaum PS, Grisso T 1995. The MacArthur treatment competence study. I Mental illness and competence to consent to treatment. Law Hum Behav 19(2):105-126.
3. Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP. 2003. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: A systematic review. J Am Med Assoc 289:454-465.
4. Butcher J. 2003. Cognitive enhancement raises ethical concerns: Academics urge pre-emptive debate on neurotechnologies. The Lancet 362:132-133.
5. Chalmers I. 1990, Underreporting research is scientific misconduct. J Am Med Assoc 263(10):1405-1408.
6. Chalmers I. 2002. Lessons for research ethics committees. Lancet 359:174-174.
7. Cho MK, Shohara R, Schissel A, Rennie D. 2000. Policies on faculty conflicts of interest at US universities. J Am Med Asoc 284(17):2203-2208.
8. DeAngelis CD. 2000. Conflict of interest and the public trust. J Am Med Asoc 284(17):2237.
9. DeAngelis C, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, Haug C, Hoey J, Horton R, Kotzin S, Laine C, Marusic A, Overbeke AJ, Schroeder TV, Sox HC, Van Der Weyden MB. 2004. Clinical trial registration: A statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. J Am Med Asoc 292(11):1363-1364.
10. de Grey AD. 2004. Biogerontologists' duty to discuss timescales publicly. Ann NY Acad Sci 1019:542-545.
11. Drazen JM, Curfman GD. 2002. Financial associations of authors. New Engl J Med 346(24):1901-1902.
12. Elger CE, Friederici AD, Koch C, Luhmann H, Malsburg C von der, Menzel R, Monyer H, Rösler F, Roth G, Scheich S, Singer W. 2004. Das Manifest. Elf führende Neurowissenschaftler über Gegenwart und Zukunft der Hirnforschung. Gehirn Geist 30-37.
13. Feuerstein G, Kollek R, Schmedders M, van Aken J. 2003. Irreführende Leitbilder. Zum Mythos der Individualisierung durch pharmakogenetische Behandlungskonzepte. Eine kritische Anmerkung. Ethik Med 15(2):77-86.
14. Farah MJ, Illes J, Cook-Deegan R, Gardner H, Kandel E, King P, Patens E, Sahakian B, Wolpe PR. 2004. Neurocognitive enhancement: What can we do and what should we do? Nat Rev Neurosci 5:421-425.
15. Helmchen H. 2000. Research involving incompetent patients. A current problem in light of German history. In: Okasha A, Arboleda-Flórez J, Sartorius N, editors. Ethics, culture and psychiatry. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association. pp 147-166.
16. Helmchen H. 2002. Biomedizinische Forschung mit einwilligung-sunfähigen Erwachsenen. In: Taupitz J, editor. Das Menschen-rechtsübereinkommen zur Biomedizin des Europarates - taugliches Vorbild für eine weltweit geltende Regelung?. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer. pp 83-115.
17. Korn D. 2000. Conflicts of interest in biomedical research. J Am Med Asoc 284(17):2234-2237.
18. Korn D. 2002. Scientific misconduct: the state's role has limits. Nature 420(6917):739.
19. Mackay T. 2003. An ethical assessment of anti-aging medicine. J Anti Aging Med 6(3):187-204.
20. Macklin R. 2001. Bioethics and public policy in the next millennium: Presidential address. Bioethics 15(5-6):373-381.
21. Müller DJ, Shinkai T, De Luca V, Kennedy JL. 2004. Clinical implications of pharmacogenomics for tardive dyskinesia. Pharmacogenomics J 4:77-87.
22. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. 2002. The ethics of research related to healthcare in developing countries. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics.
23. Ottosson JO, Fink M. 2004. Ethics in electroconvulsive therapy. New York, Hove: Brunner-Routledge.
24. Roelcke V. 2004. Introduction. In: Roelcke V, Maio G, editors. Twentieth Century ethics of human subjects research. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. pp 13-14.
25. Shalala D. 2000. Protecting research subjects - What must be done. New Engl J Med 343(11):808-810.
26. Vollmann J, Bauer A, Danker-Hopfe A, Helmchen H. 2003. Competence of mentally ill patients: A comparative empirical study. Psychol Med 33:1463-1471.
27. Vollmann J, Kühl KP, Tilmann A, Hartung HID, Helmchen H. 2004. Einwilligungsfähigkeit und neuropsychologische Einschränkungen bei dementen Patienten. Nervenarzt 75:29-35.
28. Wagner v. Jauregg J. 1950. Lebenserinnerungen. Wien: Springer.
29. Ward HJT, Cousens SN, Smith-Bathgate B, Leitch M, Everington D, Will RG, Smith PG. 2004. Obstacles to conducting epidemiological research in the UK general population. Br Med J 329:277-279.
30. WFSBP. 2004. Proposal of recommendations. Ethical implications of relationships between psychiatrists and pharmaceutical industry. E-version: www.wfsbp.org/ethics