Rapid advances in neurotechnology and neurosurgery are positioned to revolutionize care for patients suffering from debilitating neurological and psychiatric disease. Enthusiasm for the adoption of these technologies is tempered by ethical dilemmas regarding resource allocation, provision of care, communication with patients and other providers, and other potential pitfalls. In the present work, we discuss bioethical implications of novel neurotechnologies for medical practice. In particular, we examine the implications of neurotechnological advancement through the lens of professional communication. Emerging challenges within this domain are presented in the context of physician interactions with four key partners: (i) patients; (ii) other physicians; (iii) industry; and (iv) society-at-large. Anticipated issues as well as mitigation strategies are discussed as they relate to communication with these stakeholders.

The last two decades have seen dramatic growth in the application of procedurally based interventions for treating refractory psychiatric conditions, leading to interest in developing the foundations for the subspecialty of “Interventional Psychiatry.” However, there is cause for concern that the rate of expansion of clinical advances in this field may be outpacing the ability of postgraduate curricula to provide sufficient exposure to and teaching and supervision of these treatments. The paucity of adequately trained practitioners in Interventional Psychiatry further exacerbates inequities in the ability of eligible patients to access and benefit from these approaches. This paper explores the rates of utilization of Interventional Psychiatry treatments, the current state of education in these treatments, and the role that training can play in translating scientific advances in this area to ensure equitable access and maximum impact at a population level. The majority of the discussion is centered on electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), the most established and available of these treatments, highlighting how enhancing education and training in ECT can reduce barriers to its utilization. It is argued that innovations in pedagogical approaches for disseminating the learning of these procedures are needed to increase the current low rates of competency in these treatments and can facilitate the more rapid dissemination of other Interventional Psychiatry approaches and neurotechnologies, such as repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, ketamine, deep brain stimulation, and focused ultrasound.

Geographic, social, political, and economic factors shape access to advanced neurotechnologies, yet little previous research has explored the barriers, enablers, and areas of opportunity for equitable and meaningful access for diverse patient communities across Canada. We applied a mixed-mode approach involving semi-structured interviews and rating scale questions to consult with 24 medical experts who are involved in the care of patients who undergo functional neurosurgery targeting the brain. Seven major themes emerged from the qualitative analysis: Health care system, Neurotechnology features, Patient demographics, Target condition features, Ethics, Upstream barriers and enablers, and Areas of opportunity. Descriptive statistics of the Likert-scale responses suggest that interviewees perceive a disparity between the imperative of access to advanced neurotechnologies for people living in rural and remote areas and the likelihood of achieving such access. The results depict a complex picture of access to functional neurosurgery in Canada with pockets of excellence and a motivation to improve the availability of care for vulnerable populations through the expansion of distributed care models, improved health care system efficiencies, increasing funding and support for patient travel, and increasing awareness about and advocacy for advanced neurotechnologies.

Despite increased efforts of government and non-government organisations to intervene via harm reduction and education initiatives, the opioid crisis has continued to worsen and has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. In British Columbia, Canada, opioid overdose deaths in 2021 are the highest ever recorded. Neuromodulation procedures such as deep brain stimulation and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation have gained traction as treatments for opioid use disorder in various countries such as Germany, the Netherlands, the United States and China. However, these treatment options have been met with apprehension from both clinicians and patients, likely owing to fear, stigma and reluctance to label addiction as a brain disorder. Further complicating this landscape are socio-demographic factors, as marginalised communities are disproportionately burdened by addiction, while having poor access to care and a history of distrust in the health system. This multifactorial challenge involving many sociocultural factors requires culturally sensitive, interdisciplinary approaches to ensure direct-to-brain innovations are implemented ethically and equitably. This review summarises the state of the science for using neuromodulation to treat opioid use disorder, as well as the available ethical discourse surrounding the expansion of clinical trials and eventual widespread clinical implementation. Additional ethics discussions highlight opportunities for the engineering and clinical evolution of neuromodulation for opioid use disorder trials.

Placebo-controlled trials are the gold standard of evaluating treatment efficacy in clinical research. Neuromodulation is emerging as an important treatment pathway for many neuropsychiatric conditions, and placebo control arms of these trials require careful design with unique considerations (e.g., sham devices that mimic active stimulation, blinding effectiveness). Inherent to placebo-controlled trials are ethical concerns, such as deception, and potential harm of not receiving the active treatment. In this article, we outline important ethical considerations of placebo-controlled trials across neuromodulation approaches and provide recommendations on how ethical principles can be adhered to going forward. We specifically address issues of autonomy and respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. Within the context of this ethical framework, we also discuss factors influencing placebo effects in neuromodulation, the importance of adequate blinding, and alternative trial designs that could be considered.

The neurotechnology sector is likely to develop under pressure towards commercialized, nonmedical products and may also undergo market consolidation. This possibility raises ethical, social, and policy concerns about the future responsibility of neurotechnology innovators and companies for high-consequence design decisions. Present-day internet technology firms furnish an instructive example of the problems that arise when providers of communicative technologies become too big for accountability. As a guardrail against the emergence of similar problems, concerned neurotechnologists may wish to draw inspiration from antitrust law and direct efforts, where appropriate, against undue consolidation in the commercial neurotechnology market.