Comparison of philosophical concerns between professionals and the public regarding two psychiatric treatments.

Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading   Processing Request
Read More Add to Saved list
  • Additional Information
    • Source:
      Publisher: Taylor & Francis Group, 2014- Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 101631047 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 2329-4523 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 23294515 NLM ISO Abbreviation: AJOB Empir Bioeth Subsets: MEDLINE
    • Publication Information:
      Original Publication: Philadelphia, PA : Taylor & Francis Group, 2014-
    • Subject Terms:
      Bioethics* ; Conflict of Interest*; Psychosurgery/*ethics ; Psychotherapy/*ethics; Humans ; Personal Autonomy ; Philosophy, Medical ; Psychotherapy/methods
    • Abstract:
      Background: Psychiatric interventions are a contested area in medicine, not only because of their history of abuses, but also because their therapeutic goal is to affect emotions, thoughts, beliefs, and behaviors that are regarded as pathological. Because psychiatric interventions affect characteristics that seem central to who we are, they raise issues regarding identity, autonomy, and personal responsibility for one's own well-being. Our study addresses two questions: (1) Do the public and academic researchers understand the philosophical stakes of these technologies in the same way? Following from this, (2) to what extent does the specific type of psychiatric technology affect the issues these two groups raise? This study compares how ethical issues regarding neurosurgical and pharmaceutical psychiatric interventions are discussed among the public and in the professional community of academic medicine and bioethics.
      Methods: We analyzed (1) online public comments and (2) the medical and bioethics literature, comparing the discussions of pharmacological and neurosurgical interventions in psychiatry in each source.
      Results: Overall, the public discussed philosophical issues less frequently than academics. For the two types of psychiatric interventions, we found differences between the academic literature and public comments among all themes, except for personal responsibility.
      Conclusions: These findings reveal some of the similarities and discrepancies in how philosophical issues associated with psychiatric treatments are discussed in professional circles and among the public. Further research into what causes these discrepancies is crucial.
    • Contributed Indexing:
      Keywords: authenticity; autonomy; enhancement; identity; neurosurgery; pharmaceuticals
    • Publication Date:
      Date Created: 20181107 Date Completed: 20191108 Latest Revision: 20191108
    • Publication Date:
      20240829
    • Accession Number:
      10.1080/23294515.2018.1512534
    • Accession Number:
      30398397