Revista brasileira de psiquiatria (Sao Paulo, Brazil : 1999) · 2026
Ethical issues in implantable medical devices: future of care or Orwellian nightmare?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Marmirolli Fábio Augusto do Prado, Marmirolli Anna Paula Soares da Silva, Fidalgo Thiago Marques
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Implantable medical devices (IMDs) increasingly integrate continuous monitoring with autonomous therapeutic functions, transforming clinical practice while raising significant ethical concerns. As these technologies expand - particularly among vulnerable populations such as individuals with substance use disorders - the tension between patient safety and autonomy intensifies. This article examines the ethical and legal implications of IMDs, emphasizing ongoing consent, data governance, and neurorights.
METHODS: We conducted a narrative and normative bioethical analysis grounded in interdisciplinary literature. Empirical and conceptual studies on IMDs, neurotechnologies, and opioid overdose interventions were reviewed alongside regulatory frameworks, including the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Brazil's General Data Protection Law (LGPD), and the United States Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).
RESULTS: Highly autonomous IMDs challenge traditional informed consent models, particularly regarding revocation, device deactivation, and continuous data processing. Vulnerable populations may face stigma and expanded secondary uses of sensitive data, while existing regulations leave gaps in neural and biometric data protection.
CONCLUSIONS: Ethical implementation requires patient-centered frameworks ensuring ongoing consent, secure data governance, and protection of mental privacy.
METHODS: We conducted a narrative and normative bioethical analysis grounded in interdisciplinary literature. Empirical and conceptual studies on IMDs, neurotechnologies, and opioid overdose interventions were reviewed alongside regulatory frameworks, including the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Brazil's General Data Protection Law (LGPD), and the United States Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).
RESULTS: Highly autonomous IMDs challenge traditional informed consent models, particularly regarding revocation, device deactivation, and continuous data processing. Vulnerable populations may face stigma and expanded secondary uses of sensitive data, while existing regulations leave gaps in neural and biometric data protection.
CONCLUSIONS: Ethical implementation requires patient-centered frameworks ensuring ongoing consent, secure data governance, and protection of mental privacy.