With the recent announcement from Elon Musk that NeuraLink's brain computer interface is operational, it is now possible for implanted people's thoughts to be remotely monitored--"telepathic" surveillance, in other words. As a thought experiment, do you think that ADCOMMs should partner with NeuraLink to implant pre-med students with this device to assess them as candidates?
If so, do you think that ADCOMMs should have to gain conscious consent from students before implanting them with the device? Would it be enough for the student's parents to give consent even if the student were above the age of 18? Would it be legal or ethically acceptable for an ADCOMM to implant a pre-med student without their consent with this device even before the FDA has approved it as a medical device for use in humans? Do the same laws and rules of medical ethics regarding informed consent and non-consensual medical experimentation without sanctioning from the IRB or the FDA (e.g. the Nuremberg code) apply to ADCOMMs as to other doctors? Or are they above the law and all medical ethics because their charge of protecting the public from "unfit" medical students trumps all other concerns?
Maybe it wouldn't be so bad. After all, the CASPer already has our webcams on constantly watching us throughout the exam. Lots of apps and websites such as SDN can access your webcam and microphone whenever they want to. How else do you think those Facebook ads are trying to sell you things that you talked about in front of your phone or your computer? Every message we type on this website could be added to a dossier of online content we've generated that's made available to all med schools for their judgment, for all we know. Would it really be so bad for an ADCOMM member and a physician to implant a brain computer interface device that has not yet been approved by the FDA for no medical reason into a pre-med's brain without their consent so that med school ADCOMMs can read the candidate's thoughts and decide based on that whether to admit the person?
Nothing is more important for the betterment of society than recruiting the best possible medical school candidates (and weeding out the bad apples with bad thoughts), right? So the violations of medical ethics, human rights, and the law such a project would entail would be justified, right? Or did I miss something in my ethical reasoning here?
Since this issue will come up eventually whether we like it or not due to this technology, I figure we might as well start talking about it out in the open now. I'm curious what students and what ADCOMM members such as @LizzyM, @gonnif, @Toutie, @meded, @Goro, @gyngyn, @Catalystik think.
If so, do you think that ADCOMMs should have to gain conscious consent from students before implanting them with the device? Would it be enough for the student's parents to give consent even if the student were above the age of 18? Would it be legal or ethically acceptable for an ADCOMM to implant a pre-med student without their consent with this device even before the FDA has approved it as a medical device for use in humans? Do the same laws and rules of medical ethics regarding informed consent and non-consensual medical experimentation without sanctioning from the IRB or the FDA (e.g. the Nuremberg code) apply to ADCOMMs as to other doctors? Or are they above the law and all medical ethics because their charge of protecting the public from "unfit" medical students trumps all other concerns?
Maybe it wouldn't be so bad. After all, the CASPer already has our webcams on constantly watching us throughout the exam. Lots of apps and websites such as SDN can access your webcam and microphone whenever they want to. How else do you think those Facebook ads are trying to sell you things that you talked about in front of your phone or your computer? Every message we type on this website could be added to a dossier of online content we've generated that's made available to all med schools for their judgment, for all we know. Would it really be so bad for an ADCOMM member and a physician to implant a brain computer interface device that has not yet been approved by the FDA for no medical reason into a pre-med's brain without their consent so that med school ADCOMMs can read the candidate's thoughts and decide based on that whether to admit the person?
Nothing is more important for the betterment of society than recruiting the best possible medical school candidates (and weeding out the bad apples with bad thoughts), right? So the violations of medical ethics, human rights, and the law such a project would entail would be justified, right? Or did I miss something in my ethical reasoning here?
Since this issue will come up eventually whether we like it or not due to this technology, I figure we might as well start talking about it out in the open now. I'm curious what students and what ADCOMM members such as @LizzyM, @gonnif, @Toutie, @meded, @Goro, @gyngyn, @Catalystik think.
