Psychosis, vulnerability, and the moral significance of biomedical innovation in psychiatry. Why ethicists should join efforts

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

The study of the neuroscience and genomics of mental illness are increasingly intertwined. This is mostly due to the translation of medical technologies into psychiatry and to technological convergence. This article focuses on psychosis. I argue that the convergence of neuroscience and genomics in the context of psychosis is morally problematic, and that ethics scholarship should go beyond the identification of a number of ethical, legal, and social issues. My argument is composed of two strands. First, I argue that we should respond to technological convergence by developing an integrated, patient-centred approach focused on the assessment of individual vulnerabilities. Responding to technological convergence requires that we (i) integrate insights from several areas of ethics, (ii) translate bioethical principles into the mental health context, and (iii) proactively try to anticipate future ethical concerns. Second, I argue that a nuanced understanding of the concept of vulnerability might help us to accomplish this task. I borrow Florencia Luna's notion of 'layers of vulnerability' to show how potential harms or wrongs to individuals who experience psychosis can be conceptualised as stemming from different sources, or layers, of vulnerability. I argue that a layered notion of vulnerability might serve as a common ground to achieve the ethical integration needed to ensure that biomedical innovation can truly benefit, and not harm, individuals who suffer from psychosis.

Original languageEnglish
JournalMedicine, Health Care and Philosophy
Early online date26 Nov 2019
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 26 Nov 2019

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Psychosis, vulnerability, and the moral significance of biomedical innovation in psychiatry. Why ethicists should join efforts'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this