Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Public Pressure for Neurosurgical Innovation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Ethics of Innovation in Neurosurgery

  • 312 Accesses

Abstract

Public pressure for innovation plays a key role in determining the goals of neurosurgical research and practice. Public, philanthropic, and industry funding of research and innovation each have direct and differing effects on the advances achieved in neurosurgical practice, while public advocacy and pressure for specific treatments can shift clinical practice patterns. In this chapter, we will discuss how these varied forms of public pressure for innovation should meet the criteria of beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice, just as the care provided by neurosurgeons should.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Buhles WC. Compassionate use: a story of ethics and science in the development of a new drug. Perspect Biol Med. 2011;54(3):304–15.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Mukherjee S. The emperor of all maladies: a biography of cancer. New York: Scribner; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Brinker N, Braun S. The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation. Breast Dis. 1998;10(5–6):23–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Maza J. Patient advocacy profile: Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation. Clin Adv Hematol Oncol H&O. 2004;2(2):129–30.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Meyerson D. Is there a right to access innovative surgery? Bioethics. 2015;29(5):342–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. McKneally MF, Daar AS. Introducing new technologies: protecting subjects of surgical innovation and research. World J Surg. 2003;27(8):930–4; discussion 934–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bowman M, Racke M, Kissel J, Imitola J. Responsibilities of health care professionals in counseling and educating patients with incurable neurological diseases regarding “stem cell tourism”: caveat emptor. JAMA Neurol. 2015;72(11):1342–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Berkowitz AL, Miller MB, Mir SA, et al. Glioproliferative lesion of the spinal cord as a complication of “stem-cell tourism”. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(2):196–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cote DJ, Bredenoord AL, Smith TR, et al. Ethical clinical translation of stem cell interventions for neurologic disease. Neurology. 2017;88(3):322–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Campbell EG. The future of research funding in academic medicine. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(15):1482–3.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Lauer MS, Nakamura R. Reviewing peer review at the NIH. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(20):1893–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hudson KL, Collins FS. The 21st century cures act—a view from the NIH. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(2):111–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Cote DJ, Balak N, Brennum J, et al. Ethical difficulties in the innovative surgical treatment of patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. J Neurosurg. 2017;126(6):2045–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. DiPaola CP, Dea N, Dvorak MF, Lee RS, Hartig D, Fisher CG. Surgeon-industry conflict of interest: survey of opinions regarding industry-sponsored educational events and surgeon teaching: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;20(3):313–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Janssen SJ, Bredenoord AL, Dhert W, de Kleuver M, Oner FC, Verlaan JJ. Potential conflicts of interest of editorial board members from five leading spine journals. PLoS One. 2015;10(6):e0127362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hollak CE, Biegstraaten M, Baumgartner MR, et al. Position statement on the role of healthcare professionals, patient organizations and industry in European Reference Networks. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2016;11:7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Driscoll B. Frankie-Rose’s family raise 175,000 in just one week to fund overseas cancer treatment. 2014. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/11/17/frankie-rose-lea-raise-money-cancer-treatment-proton-beam_n_6170624.html. Accessed 2 Mar 2017.

  18. Fisher CG, DiPaola CP, Noonan VK, Bailey C, Dvorak MF. Physician-industry conflict of interest: public opinion regarding industry-sponsored research. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012;17(1):1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bailey CS, Fehlings MG, Rampersaud YR, Hall H, Wai EK, Fisher CG. Industry and evidence-based medicine: believable or conflicted? A systematic review of the surgical literature. Can J Surg. 2011;54(5):321–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hurst DJ. Restoring a reputation: invoking the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights to bear on pharmaceutical pricing. Med Health Care Philos. 2017;20(1):105–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Berndt ER. To inform or persuade? Direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(4):325–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Donohue JM, Cevasco M, Rosenthal MB. A decade of direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(7):673–81.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Greene JA, Watkins ES. The vernacular of risk—rethinking direct-to-consumer advertising of pharmaceuticals. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(12):1087–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Cushing’s Support and Research Foundation. https://csrf.net/. Accessed 24 Feb 2017.

  25. Rose SL. Patient advocacy organizations: institutional conflicts of interest, trust, and trustworthiness. J Law Med Ethics. 2013;41(3):680–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Rose SL, Highland J, Karafa MT, Joffe S. Patient advocacy organizations, industry funding, and conflicts of interest. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(3):344–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, Grady C. What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA. 2000;283(20):2701–11.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Meyerson D. Innovative surgery and the precautionary principle. J Med Philos. 2013;38(6):605–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurosurgery, Computational Neurosciences Outcomes Center (CNOC), Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    David J. Cote

Authors
  1. David J. Cote
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David J. Cote .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurosurgery, Haaglanden Medical Center & Leiden University Medical Center, The Hague and Leiden, Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands

    Marike L. D. Broekman

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Cote, D.J. (2019). Public Pressure for Neurosurgical Innovation. In: Broekman, M. (eds) Ethics of Innovation in Neurosurgery. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05502-8_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05502-8_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-05501-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-05502-8

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation