ArticleThe Hastings Center report2024
Identity Theft, Deep Brain Stimulation, and the Primacy of Post-trial Obligations.
Article in The Hastings Center report, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Implantable Neuromodulation Devices in Psychiatry: Human Fidelity and Implementation Challenges.The American journal of psychiatry · 2026Article
- Beyond Innovation: The Burdens and Harms of Maintenance in Deep Brain Stimulation.Science and engineering ethics · 2026Article
- Recommendations on post-trial responsibility in implantable neural device research: a multidisciplinary consensus study.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Ethical Guidance for Investigational Implantable Neural Device Studies: Recommendations for Researchers and Research Ethics Committees.Neuromodulation : journal of the International Neuromodulation Society · 2026Review
- Proceedings of the 13th annual deep brain stimulation think tank: the evolving landscape.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Review
- Ethical, legal, and social issues related to ingestible, implantable electronic devices and mRNA delivery devices.Device · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Patient narratives from two investigational deep brain stimulation trials for traumatic brain injury and obsessive-compulsive disorder reveal that injury and illness rob individuals of personal identity and that neuromodulation can restore it. The early success of these interventions makes a compelling case for continued post-trial access to these technologies. Given the centrality of personal identity to respect for persons, a failure to provide continued access can be understood to represent a metaphorical identity theft. Such a loss recapitulates the pain of an individual's initial injury or illness and becomes especially tragic because it could be prevented by robust policy. A failure to fulfill this normative obligation constitutes a breach of disability law, which would view post-trial access as a means to achieve social reintegration through this neurotechnological accommodation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.