Laura Y Cabrera1, Merlin Bittlinger2, Hayami Lou3, Sabine Müller2, Judy Illes4. 1. Center for Ethics and Humanities in the Life Sciences, Department of Translational Science and Molecular Medicine, Michigan State University, East Fee Hall, 965 Wilson Road, Rm C211, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA. 2. Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, CCM, Division of Mind and Brain Research, Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany. 3. Neuroethics Canada, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. 4. Canada Research Chair in Neuroethics, Neuroethics Canada, Division of Neurology, Department of Medicine, The University of British Columbia, 2211 Wesbrook Mall, Koerner S124, Vancouver, BC, V6T 2B5, Canada. jilles@mail.ubc.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Comments made by readers in response to news articles about current events can provide profound insights into public understanding of and perspectives on those events. Here, in follow up to a paper published last year in this journal, we examined reader comments to articles in newspapers and magazines about neurosurgical interventions for treating psychiatric illness. METHOD: We conducted a thematic analysis of these comments (N = 662 coded units of data) posted in response to 115 newspaper and magazine articles from four countries (Canada, USA, Germany, and Spain) between 2006 and 2017. The comments were coded using an iteratively refined coding scheme that was structured around four a priori categories based on results from the parent study and two new categories that emerged. RESULTS: We found many references to historical psychosurgery and mostly negative and pessimistic comments about ablative neurosurgical interventions. Comments to deep brain stimulation were more positive, and comments to optogenetics most controversial. We also found many expressions of distrust of medical professionals in the context of interventions on the brain and concerns about social and individual control. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, results suggest there is still much work to be done to raise public awareness about re-emerging and new neurosurgical interventions. Balanced discussion is needed if these approaches are to find a place in health care for psychiatric disorders.
BACKGROUND: Comments made by readers in response to news articles about current events can provide profound insights into public understanding of and perspectives on those events. Here, in follow up to a paper published last year in this journal, we examined reader comments to articles in newspapers and magazines about neurosurgical interventions for treating psychiatric illness. METHOD: We conducted a thematic analysis of these comments (N = 662 coded units of data) posted in response to 115 newspaper and magazine articles from four countries (Canada, USA, Germany, and Spain) between 2006 and 2017. The comments were coded using an iteratively refined coding scheme that was structured around four a priori categories based on results from the parent study and two new categories that emerged. RESULTS: We found many references to historical psychosurgery and mostly negative and pessimistic comments about ablative neurosurgical interventions. Comments to deep brain stimulation were more positive, and comments to optogenetics most controversial. We also found many expressions of distrust of medical professionals in the context of interventions on the brain and concerns about social and individual control. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, results suggest there is still much work to be done to raise public awareness about re-emerging and new neurosurgical interventions. Balanced discussion is needed if these approaches are to find a place in health care for psychiatric disorders.
Entities:
Keywords:
Neuroethics; Psychiatric neurosurgery; Public perceptions