Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T19:10:23.212Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Confidentiality and Privacy Implications of Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Stacey A. Tovino
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Advances in science and technology frequently raise new ethical, legal, and social issues, and developments in neuroscience and neuroimaging technology are no exception. Within the field of neuroethics, leading scientists, ethicists, and humanists are exploring the implications of efforts to image, study, treat, and enhance the human brain.

This article focuses on one aspect of neuroethics: the confidentiality and privacy implications of advances in functional magnetic resonance imaging (“fMRI”). Following a brief orientation to fMRI and an overview of some of its current and proposed uses, this article highlights key confidentiality and privacy issues raised by fMRI in the contexts of health care, research, employment, insurance, criminal justice, litigation, and cognitive privacy.

Type
Currents in Contemporary Ethics
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 33 , Issue 4 , Winter 2005 , pp. 844 - 850
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

See, e.g., Illes, J., ed., Neuroethics: Defining the Issues in Theory, Practice and Policy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming 2005); Garland, B., ed., Neuroscience and the Law: Brain, Mind, and the Scales of Justice (New York: Dana Press, 2004); Marcus, S. J., ed., Neuroethics: Mapping the Field (New York: Dana Press, 2002).Google Scholar
Illes, J. and Racine, E., “Imaging or Imagining? A Neuroethics Challenge Informed by Genetics,” American Journal of Bioethics 5, no. 2 (2005): 5–18, at 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirsch, J. et al, “An Integrated Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Procedure for Preoperative Mapping of Cortical Areas Associated with Tactile, Motor, Language, and Visual Functions,” Neurosurgery 47, no. 3 (2000): 711–22.Google Scholar
Id. at 718–720.Google Scholar
Ford, P. J. and Kubu, C. S., “Caution in Leaping from Functional Imaging to Functional Neurosurgery,” American Journal of Bioethics 5, no. 2 (2005): 23–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See, e.g., Wheeler, M. T. and Fiske, S. T., “Controlling Racial Prejudice and Stereotyping: Social-Cognitive Goals Affect Amygdala and Stereotype Activation,” Psychological Science 16, no 1 (2005): 56–63; Cunningham, W. A. et al, “Separable Neural Components in the Processing of Black and White Faces,” Psychological Science 15, no. 12 (2004): 806-13; Golby, A. J. et al, “Differential Responses in the Fusiform Region to Same-Race and Other-Race Faces,” Nature Reviews Neuroscience 4, no. 8 (2001): 845-50; Phelps, E. A. et al, “Performance on Indirect Measures of Race Evaluation Predicts Amygdala Activation,” Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 12, no. 5 (2000): 729–38; Hart, A. J. et al, “Differential Response in the Human Amygdala to Racial Outgroup vs. Ingroup Face Stimuli,” NeuroReport 11, no. 11 (2000): 2351-55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Phelps, et al, supra note 6, at 734.Google Scholar
Breithaupt, H. and Weigmann, K., “Manipulating Your Mind: What Will Science Discover About Our Brains, and How Are We Going to Deal with It?” EMBO Reports 5, no. 3 (2004): 230–32, at 232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See, e.g., Davatzikos, C. et al, “Classifying Spatial Patterns of Brain Activity with Machine Learning Methods: Application to Lie Detection,” NeuroImage (forthcoming 2005); Langleben, D. D. et al, “Telling Truth from Lie in Individual Subjects with Fast Event-Related fMRI,” Human Brain Mapping (forthcoming 2005); Kozel, F. A., Padgett, T. M. and George, M. S., “A Replication Study of the Neural Correlates of Deception,” Behavioral Neuroscience 118, no. 4 (2004): 852–56; Kozel, F. A. et al, “A Pilot Study of Functional MRI Brain Correlates of Deception in Healthy Young Men,” Journal of Neuropsychiatry and the Clinical Sciences 16, no. 3 (2004): 295-305; Ganis, G. et al, “Neural Correlates of Different Types of Deception: An fMRI Investigation,” Cerebral Cortex 13, no. 8 (2003): 830-36; Lee, T. M. et al, “Lie Detection by Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging,” Human Brain Mapping, 15, no. 3 (2002): 157-64; Langleben, D. D. et al, “Brain Activity during Simulated Deception: An Event-Related Functional Magnetic Resonance Study,” NeuroImage 15, no. 3 (2002): 727-32; Spence, S. A. et al, “Behavioural and Functional Anatomical Correlates of Deception in Humans,” NeuroReport 12, no. 13 (2001): 2849-53Google Scholar
Langleben, et al, (2002), supra note 9, at 729.Google Scholar
Id. at 731.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Wolpe, P. R., Foster, K. R. and Langleben, D. D., “Emerging Neurotechnologies for Lie-Detection: Promises and Perils,” American Journal of Bioethics 5, no. 2 (2005): 39–49; Fischbach, R. L., Fischbach, G. D., “The Brain Doesn't Lie,” American Journal of Bioethics 5, no. 2 (2005): 54-55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orenstein, B. W., “Guilty? Investigating fMRI's Future as a Lie Detector,” Radiology Today 6, no. 10 (2005): 30.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Rilling, J. K. et al, “Opposing BOLD Responses to Reciprocated and Unreciprocated Altruism in Putative Reward Pathways,” NeuroReport 15, no. 16 (2004): 2539–43; Rilling, J. K., “A Neural Basis for Social Cooperation,” Neuron 35, no. 2 (2002): 395-405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rilling, et al, “A Neural Basis,” supra note 14, at 395.Google Scholar
Id. at 403.Google Scholar
See Moreno, J. D., “Neuroethics: An Agenda for Neuroscience and Society,” Nature Reviews Neuroscience 4, no. 2 (2003): 149–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See, e.g., Golby, A. J. et al, “Memory Encoding in Alzheimer's Disease: An fMRI Study of Explicit and Implicit Memory,” Brain 128, pt. 4 (2005): 773–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See, e.g., Homes, A. J. et al, “Prefrontal Functioning during Context Processing in Schizophrenia and Major Depression: An Event-Related fMRI Study,” Schizophrenia Research 76, no. 2–3 (2005): 199–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See, e.g., id.; Mitchell, R. L. C. et al, “Neural Response to Emotional Prosody in Schizophrenia and in Bipolar Affective Disorder,” British Journal of Psychiatry 184, no. 3 (2004): 223–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See, e.g., Mitchell, et al, supra note 20.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Ruff, S. et al, “Neural Substrates of Impaired Categorical Perception of Phonemes in Adult Dyslexics: An fMRI Study,” Brain and Cognition 53, no. 2 (2003): 331–34; Turkeltaub, P. E. et al, “The Neural Basis of Hyperlexic Reading: An fMRI Case Study,” Neuron 41, no. 1 (2004): 11-25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiff, N. D. et al, “fMRI Reveals Large-Scale Network Activation in Minimally Conscious Patients,” Neurology 64, no. 3 (2005): 514–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See, e.g., Dressing, H. et al, “Homosexual Pedophilia and Functional Networks-An fMRI Case Report and Literature Review,” Fortschritte der Neurologie-Psychiatrie 69, no. 11 (2001): 539–44.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Breiter, H. C. et al, “Acute Effects of Cocaine on Human Brain Activity and Emotion,” Neuron 19, no. 3 (1997): 591–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See, e.g., Crockford, D. N. et al, “Cue-Induced Brain Activity in Pathological Gamblers,” Biological Psychiatry 58 (forthcoming 2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See, e.g., James, G. A., Guo, W. and Liu, Y., “Imaging In Vivo Brain-Hormone Interaction in the Control of Eating and Obesity,” Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics 3, no. 4 (2001): 617–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See, e.g., Eisenberger, N. I. et al, “Personality from a Controlled Processing Perspective: An fMRI Study of Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Self-Consciousness,” Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience 5, no. 2 (2005): 169–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See, e.g., id.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Bartels, A., Zeiki, S., “The Neural Correlates of Maternal and Romantic Love,” NeuroImage 21, no. 3 (2004): 1155–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See, e.g., Arnow, B. A. et al, “Brain Activation and Sexual Arousal in Healthy, Heterosexual Males,” Brain 125, pt. 5 (2002): 1014–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See McClure, S. M. et al, “Neural Correlates of Behavioral Preference for Culturally Familiar Drinks,” Neuron 44, no. 2 (2004): 379–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Erk, S. et al, “Cultural Objects Modulate Reward Circuitry,” NeuroReport 13, no. 18 (2002): 2499–503.Google Scholar
See Tierney, J., “Using M.R.I.'s to See Politics on the Brain,” New York Times, April 20, 2004, at A1.Google Scholar
See “Inside the Mind of the Consumer,” Economist 371, no. 8379 (2004): 12.Google Scholar
45 C.F.R. Parts 160 and 164 (2005).Google Scholar
Id. § 164.500(a).Google Scholar
Id. § 164.104(a) (definition of covered entity); id. § 160.103 (list of the standard transactions).Google Scholar
42 U.S.C. §§ 1320d-5, 1320d-6 (2005).Google Scholar
Department of Health and Human Services, “When is a Researcher a Covered Health Care Provider Under HIPAA?” Health Information Privacy and Civil Rights Questions and Answers (updated March 3, 2003), at <http://healthprivacy.answers.hhs.gov/cgi-bin/hipaa.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=314&p_created=1040406580&p_sid=y84zQ3Ph&p_lva=953&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PWRmbHQmcF9ncmlkc29ydD0mcF9yb3dfY250PTI1JnBfcHJvZHM9JnBfY2F0cz03LDAmcF9wdj0mcF9jdj0xLjc7Mi51MCZwX3NlYXJjaF90eXBlPWFuc3dlcnMuc2VhcmNoX25sJnBfcGFnZT0xJnBfc2VhcmNoX3RleHQ9cmVzZWFyY2hlenM*&p_li=&p_topview=1> (last visited September 15, 2005).+(last+visited+September+15,+2005).>Google Scholar
See 45 C.F.R. § 164.103 (2005) (definition of hybrid entity); id. § 164.105(a) (organizational requirements relating to hybrid entities); Department of Health and Human Services, “When Does a Covered Entity Have Discretion to Determine Whether a Research Component of the Entity is Part of their Covered Functions, and Therefore, Subject to the HIPAA Privacy Rule?” Health Information Privacy and Civil Rights Questions and Answers (updated May 19, 2003), at <http://healthprivacy.answers.hhs.gov/cgi-bin/hipaa.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=315&p_created=1040406601&p_sid=y84zQ3Ph&p_lva=953&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PWRmbHQmcF9ncmlkc29ydD0mcF9yb3dfY250PTImcF9wcm9kcz0mcF9jYXRzPTcsMCZwX3B2PSZwX2N2PTEuNzsyLnUwJnBfc2VhemNoX3R5cGU9YW5zd2Vycy5zZWFyY2hfbmwmcF9wYWdlPTEmcF9zZWFyY2hfdGV4dD1oeWJyaWQgZW50aXR5&p_li=&p_topview=1> (last visited September 15, 2005).+(last+visited+September+15,+2005).>Google Scholar
45 C.F.R. § 164.500(a) (2005).Google Scholar
Id. § 160.103.Google Scholar
Id. See also id. § 164.514(a).Google Scholar
Id. § 164.514(b)(2)(i)(A), (D), (G), (H), and (J).Google Scholar
Id. § 164.514(b)(2)(i). Asecond method of de-identifying information allows a person with appropriate knowledge of and experience with generally accepted statistical and scientific principles and methods for rendering information not individually identifiable to determine that the information is not individually identifiable. Id. § 164.514(b)(1).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Van Horn, J. D. and Gazzaniga, M. S., “Databasing fMRI Studies – Towards a ‘Discovery Science’ of Brain Function,” Nature Reviews Neuroscience 3, no. 4 (2002): 314–18, at 314; Toga, A. W., “Neuroimaging Databases: The Good, the Bad, the Ugly,” Nature Reviews Neuroscience 3, no.4(2002): 302-9, at 307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, “Submission Guidelines,” at <http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=4&tid=12&xid=6&xcid=0> (“All papers accepted in JOCN will be required to submit their fMRI data to the FMRI Data Center”) (last visited September 15, 2005).+(“All+papers+accepted+in+JOCN+will+be+required+to+submit+their+fMRI+data+to+the+FMRI+Data+Center”)+(last+visited+September+15,+2005).>Google Scholar
See, e.g., Van Horn, and Gazzaniga, , supra note 47, at 318; Van Horn, J. D. et al, “The Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Data Center: The Challenges and Rewards of Large-Scale Databasing of Neuroimaging Studies,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London: Biological Sciences 356, no. 1412 (2001): 1323–39, at 1323–24.Google Scholar
45 C.F.R. § 164.514(b)(2)(i) (2005).Google Scholar
If one or more of the eighteen identifiers remain in the information, the Privacy Rule would require the covered entity to: (1) obtain a prior written authorization containing certain required elements and statements from each subject whose identifiers are disclosed to the databank; or (2) satisfy a research-related exception to the Privacy Rule's authorization requirement. One potentially applicable exception permits an institutional review board or privacy board to waive the authorization required by the Privacy Rule if certain criteria are satisfied. See id. § 164.508(c)(1) and (2); id. § 164.512(i).Google Scholar
Id. § 46.111(a)(7).Google Scholar
See generally Kulynych, J., “Legal and Ethical Issues in Neuroimaging Research: Human Subjects Protection, Medical Privacy, and the Public Communication of Research Results,” Brain and Cognition 50, no. 3 (2002): 345–57, at 349–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See 45 C.F.R. § 46.102(f) (2005) (protecting data that results from “intervention or interaction with [an] individual” or “identifiable private information”).Google Scholar
Id. § 46.102(f).Google Scholar
See, e.g., CAL. CIV. CODE §§ 56.05-.37, 56.05(g) (West 2005) (California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act provisions protecting “medical information,” defined as “individually identifiable information, in electronic or physical form, in possession of or derived from a provider of health care, health care service plan, pharmaceutical company, or contractor regarding a patient's medical history, mental or physical condition, or treatment”); TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. §§ 241.151- .153, 241.151(2) (Vernon 2005) (Texas Hospital Licensing Law provision establishing confidentiality protections for “health care information,” defined as information that relates to the “history, diagnosis, treatment, or prognosis of a patient”).Google Scholar
See Greely, H. T., “Prediction, Litigation, Privacy, and Property: Some Possible Legal and Social Implications of Advances in Neuroscience,” in Garland, B., ed., Neuroscience and the Law: Brain, Mind, and the Scales of Justice (New York: Dana Press, 2004): 144–45 (identifying five arguments against applying special confidentiality protections to neuroimaging information).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id. at 144.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Illes, and Racine, , supra note 2, at 10–12; Wilfond, B. S. and Ravitsky, V., “On the Proliferation of Bioethics Sub-Disciplines: Do We Really Need ‘Genethics’ and ‘Neuroethics?’” American Journal of Bioethics 5, no. 2 (2005): 20–21; Reid, L. and Baylis, F., “Brains, Genes, and the Making of the Self,” American Journal of Bioethics 5, no. 2 (2005): 21-23, at 22–23; Doucet, H., “Imagining a Neuroethics Which Would Go Further Than Genethics,” American Journal of Bioethics 5, no. 2 (2005): 29-31.Google Scholar
See Proceedings, Detection and Disclosure of Incidental Findings in Neuroimaging Research, Bethesda, MD, January 6–7, 2005, at <http://accessible.ninds.nih.gov/news_and_events/proceedings/ifexecsummary_pr.htm> (last visited September 15, 2005); Illes, J. et al, “Discovery and Disclosure of Incidental Findings in Neuroimaging Research,” Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging 20, no. 5 (2004): 743–47; Illes, J. et al, “Ethical Consideration of Incidental Findings on Adult Brain MRI in Research,” Neurology 62, no. 6 (2004): 888-90; Illes, J. et al, “Ethical and Practical Considerations in Managing Incidental Findings in Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging,” Brain and Cognition 50, no. 3 (2002): 358–65; Katzman, G. L., Dagher, A. P. and Patronas, N. J., “Incidental Findings on Brain Magnetic Resonance Imaging from 1000 Asymptomatic Volunteers,” JAMA 281, no. 1 (1999): 36-39.Google Scholar
See Illes, et al, “Ethical Considerations,” supra note 61, at 889; Illes, et al, “Ethical and Practical Considerations,” supra note 61, at 362–64.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Moreno, , supra note 17, at 152; Foster, K. R., Wolpe, P. R. and Caplan, A. L., “Bioethics & the Brain,” IEEE Spectrum 40, no. 6 (2003): 34–39, at 34.Google Scholar
42 U.S.C. §§ 12111–12117 (2005).Google Scholar
29 U.S.C. §§ 2001–2009 (2005).Google Scholar
42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(6) (2005); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.10 (2005).Google Scholar
Id. § 1630.2(g).Google Scholar
Id. § 1630.3(d)(1) (pedophilia not disability); id. § 1630.3(d)(2) (compulsive gambling not disability); id. § 1630.3(e) (homosexuality not impairment so not disability).Google Scholar
42 U.S.C. § 12112(d) (2005); 29 C.F.R. §§ 1630.13-.14 (2005).Google Scholar
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Notice No. 915.002, Enforcement Guidance: Preemployment Disability-Related Questions and Medical Examinations (October 10, 1995).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
29 U.S.C. § 2002(1) (2005).Google Scholar
Id. § 2001(3).Google Scholar
Phillips, H., “Private Thoughts, Public Property,” New Scientist 183, no. 2458 (2004): 38–41.Google Scholar
Greely, , supra note 57, at 124–25.Google Scholar
See generally Rothstein, M. A., ed., Genetics and Life Insurance: Medical Underwriting and Social Policy (Cambridge: MIT Press: 2004).Google Scholar
Greely, , supra note 57, at 120–23, 127–37, 141–42, and 145–48.Google Scholar
Boire, R. G., “Searching the Brain: The Fourth Amendment Implications of Brain-Based Deception Detection Devices,” American Journal of Bioethics 5, no. 2 (2005): 62–63.Google Scholar
Greely, , supra note 57, at 146.Google Scholar
Id. at 136.Google Scholar
See generally Boire, R. G., “On Cognitive Liberty,” Journal of Cognitive Liberties 1, no. 1 (1999/2000): 7–13.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 326–27 (1937) (“[F]reedom [of thought] … is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom”); Jones v. Opelika, 316 U.S. 584, 618 (1942) (“[F]reedom to think is absolute of its own nature; the most tyrannical government is powerless to control the inward workings of the mind”); Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209, 234–35 (1977) (“[A]t the heart of the First Amendment is the notion that an individual should be free to believe as he will …”); Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234, 253 (2002) (“The right to think is the beginning of freedom …”). See generally Brief of Amici Curiae Center for Cognitive Liberty & Ethics, at 3–7, Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003) (No. 02–5664) (arguing that the First Amendment guarantees freedom of thought).Google Scholar