Please join us for the world premiere of Seizing Hope: High Tech Journeys in Pediatric Epilepsy!
5:00 PM – 6:15 PM PDT Wednesday, July 6, 2022 VIFF Centre, 1181 Seymour St., Vancouver, BC V6B 3M7 RSVP to the event here: https://seizinghopefilmvan.eventbrite.ca
Can new technology bring hope to children who have drug-resistant epilepsy?
More than 500,000 children in Canada and the USA have epilepsy. About a third of those children continue to have seizures despite taking anti-seizure medications, also known as pediatric drug resistant epilepsy (DRE). Surgery may be one option for them, but what if there is another option that is less invasive or more effective? What if new technology can bring hope to children who have DRE?
EVENT TIMELINE 4:15PM Doors open 5:00PM Screening starts 5:45PM Panel and Audience Q&A 6:15PM Public event ends
MODERATOR: Judy Illes, CM, PhD, FRSC, FCAHS Professor and UBC Distinguished Scholar in Neuroethics Director, Neuroethics Canada University of British Columbia
PANELISTS: Patrick J. McDonald MD, MHSc, FRCSC Associate Professor and Head, Section of Neurosurgery Section Head, Neurosurgery, Shared Health Manitoba Department of Surgery University of Manitoba
Johann Roduit, PhD Science Communicator, Producer, and Founding Partner of Conexkt
Please note that seating is general admission and is first-come, first-served. Tickets obtained through registration at Eventbrite do not guarantee guests a seat at the theatre. Theatre is overbooked to ensure a full house.
ABOUT SEIZING HOPE Families with children suffering from pediatric drug resistant epilepsy (DRE) face complex realities. In a world guided by the promises of technology, the goal of Seizing Hope is to raise awareness about the options offered by different technologies specifically for the brain in complement or as an alternative to treatment with medication. As the directors and producers of this mini-documentary, we want to empower and improve decision-making by exploring values and priorities through the lens of the families and doctors who care for them. We compiled the stories of four families with children who have pediatric DRE to shed light on their hope, trust, and empowerment journey.
The views and research presented in this documentary represent a multi-year neuroethics project funded by the National Institute of Mental Health of the USA National Institutes of Health, BRAIN Initiative.
CREDITS Neuroethics Canada UBC, with funding from the NIH/NIMH BRAIN Initiative (#RF1MH117805-01) in association with Conexkt Innovation Studio And Cassiar Film CO. present Seizing Hope. Featuring the Bagg, Chartrand, Thompson, and Cowin families. Executive Producers Dr. Judy Illes and Dr. Patrick J. McDonald. Produced by Dr. Johann Roduit. Directed by Adam Wormald.
Thursday, June 9, 2022 4:00 PM – 5:30 PM PDT Please register here for the Zoom details: https://ccbwic.eventbrite.ca
Join us for a conversation about supporting Indigenous peoples’ wellness and self-determination in the areas of genomics and brain wellness. Hear perspectives from Krystal Tsosie, co-founder of the first U.S. Indigenous-led biobank, and from members of a working group that convened this past fall to explore the meanings of brain wellness in an Indigenous health context. Our conversation will span topics including research and data sovereignty, intersections between genomic ethics and neuroethics, and uplifting community voices and perspectives. Come ready to learn and consider how our positionalities, lived experiences and cultures can impact the way we think and reason about ethics.
Panelists: Krystal Tsosie, MPH, MA Navajo Nation PhD candidate, Genomics and Health Disparities Vanderbilt University
Bryce Mercredi Métis Nation Elder
Cornelia (Nel) Wieman, MD, MSc, FRCPC Anishinaabe (Little Grand Rapids First Nation) Deputy Chief Medical Officer, First Nations Health Authority
Malcolm King, PhD, FCAHS Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation Professor, Community Health and Epidemiology College of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan
Sekani Dakelth Nak’azdli Nation Community member and activist
Moderated by: Louise Harding, BSc MSc Student, School of Population and Public Health Neuroethics Canada, University of British Columbia
We are grateful to the UBC W. Maurice Young Centre for Applied Ethics for providing funding for this event.
Tuesday, June 7, 2022 4:00 PM – 5:30 PM PDT Please register here for the Zoom details: www.ccmtg.eventbrite.ca
Come join us for an interactive conversation with experts to discuss the latest in different approaches to spinal cord repair!
PANELISTS: Andrea Townson, MD, FRCPC Medical Co-Chair, Regional Rehab Program, VCHA Clinical Professor Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia
John Madden, PhD, PEng Director, Advanced Materials and Process Engineering Laboratory Professor Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering, University of British Columbia
Karim Fouad, PhD Co-Director and Editor, Open Data Commons-SCI Professor and Canada Research Chair for Spinal Cord Injury Department of Physical Therapy and Neuroscience and Mental Health Institute, University of Alberta
MODERATED BY: Judy Illes, CM, PhD Director, Neuroethics Canada Professor and Distinguished University Scholar, UBC Distinguished Professor in Neuroethics Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia
Join us forEthics in Environment & Democracy, the final installation of Ethics for UBC, a five-part speaker series that will explore the current landscape of ethics scholarship and education across the Vancouver and Okanagan campuses of our university.
In attending this interactive 75-min panel discussion, you will have the opportunity to learn about the current ethics-related endeavours taking place at UBC, pressing ethical issues that exist across a wide range of disciplines, and the ways in which you can become more involved.
This panel discussion will focus on ethics across a variety of disciplines, from animal welfare and ecophysiology, to democracy and ecofeminism.
Join us forEthics in Health, the fourth installation of Ethics for UBC, a five-part speaker series that will explore the current landscape of ethics scholarship and education across the Vancouver and Okanagan campuses of our university.
In attending this interactive 75-min panel discussion, you will have the opportunity to learn about the current ethics-related endeavours taking place at UBC, pressing ethical issues that exist across a wide range of disciplines, and the ways in which you can become more involved.
This panel discussion will focus on ethics across a variety of disciplines, spanning kinesiology and the exercise sciences, neuroethics, and medicine.
Join us forEthics in Policy, Business & Law, the third installation of Ethics for UBC, a five-part speaker series that will explore the current landscape of ethics scholarship and education across the Vancouver and Okanagan campuses of our university.
In attending this interactive 75-min panel discussion, you will have the opportunity to learn about the current ethics-related endeavours taking place at UBC, pressing ethical issues that exist across a wide range of disciplines, and the ways in which you can become more involved.
This panel discussion will focus on ethics across a variety of disciplines, from Indigenous law and policy, to sustainable entrepreneurship and ethical business practices.
Overview Rapid technological advancements have led to the potential for significant improvements in brain health, expanding both the range of conditions treated and number of patients who can be helped. While these advancements hold great promise, they also come with considerable cost and a risk that they are not offered to all who may benefit from them, especially those in vulnerable populations. Advances in treating children with epilepsy and adults with movement disorders make equitable access to all ever more critical.
Patrick McDonald MD, MHSc, FRCSC Dr. Patrick McDonald is a pediatric neurosurgeon at Winnipeg Children’s Hospital, Head of the Section of Neurosurgery at the University of Manitoba and a Faculty Member at Neuroethics Canada in Vancouver, BC. He is Chair of the Ethics Committee of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada and Past President of the Canadian Neurosurgical Society. For twenty years he has combined a practice caring for children with neurologic illness with an interest in the ethical issues that surround that care. Collaborating with Professor Judy Illes, Director of Neuroethics Canada, he studies the neuroethical issues inherent in the adoption of novel neurotechnologies to treat brain illness.
Brain Awareness Week Brain Awareness Week is the global campaign to foster public enthusiasm and support for brain science. Every March, partners host imaginative activities in their communities that share the wonders of the brain and the impact brain science has on our everyday lives.
Recently Quinn Boyle and Drs. Paul van Donkelaar and Judy Illes (1), who are affiliated with Neuroethics Canada, wrote about neuroethics methodology for the Encyclopedia of Behavioral Neuroscience. In this piece, they briefly discuss the use of sharing circles in neuroethics research. Here, I will attempt to deepen that overview by summarizing a few key sources that have described sharing circle methodologies, by exploring how this method can be utilized in research in a culturally safe way, and by uncovering future directions for use in neuroethics. I enter this topic as a non-Indigenous settler with experience participating in numerous sharing circles led by Indigenous Elders on topics of health and educational equity.
In response to concerns surrounding extractive research methodologies, and to recognize a need for the decolonization and Indigenization of many research projects, particularly those involving Indigenous peoples and communities, seminal Indigenous scholars such as Margaret Kovach (2) have asserted the “need to take back control of research so that it is relevant and useful” (p. 59). One way by which culturally-conscious scholars have attempted to utilize research methodology in a way that is relevant and useful is through the sharing circle method, a traditional practice used by Indigenous groups across the world (3,4). A cross-database search, absent a test for duplicate results, for the terms “sharing circle” and “talking circle” retrieved several hundred results, emphasizing the range of qualitative work that utilizes this methodological approach. Results revealed studies spanning the humanities, social sciences, and health sciences in a variety of disciplines. Sharing circle methodology is especially prominent in studies that attempt to gather and highlight the lived experiences of communities, groups, and study participants.
Sharing circles (Figure 1), also referred to as talking circles, peacemaking circles, or healing circles, are conversationally-driven and hold space for storytelling (3). Moreover, sharing circles, as Tachine et al. (3) point out, are a cultural practice and research methodology familiar to the Māori people of New Zealand. Likewise, sharing circles, which Margaret Kovach (5) describes as being a space in which “the story breathes and the narrator regulates” (p. 99), are used by Indigenous groups in North America such as the Cree people of Canada. As such, the widespread use of and familiarity with sharing circles can make this method viable and culturally safe for research with Indigenous populations in a variety of contexts. That said, given the traditional value of this sharing circles to Indigenous communities worldwide, research that utilizes sharing circles is best led for and by Indigenous peoples.
Sharing circles differ in several key ways from interviews and focus groups. As Tachine et al. (3) assert, there are three primary features of focus groups: data collection, discussion, and the instrumentality of the facilitator (3). In a focus group, the facilitator holds the power; they take the conversation where they wish. Moreover, focus groups are usually short in timespan, ranging from approximately 45 minutes to 1.5 hours (3). As Tachine et al. (3) point out, focus groups can silence individual voices, lead to nondisclosure of personal stories, and inhibit the generation of new narratives. On the contrary, Tachine et al. (3) describe sharing circles as a place where stories thrive through reverence to cultural practices and solidarity between participants. Moreover, in a sharing circle, all participants, including the facilitator, are seen as equal (6). In a sharing circle, the facilitator is known as a circle keeper and facilitates the community protocols (7). Protocols can include leading opening or closing ceremonies, and ensuring the space is safe (7).
Describing the sharing circle methodology by way of poetic narrative, education and social work scholar Fyre Jean Graveline (8)—who is of Métis (Cree) ancestry—outlines the basic guiding principles and requirements of sharing circles (Figure 1). First, sharing circles require explicit modeling and clear intentions (8 p. 365). Second, sharing circles should allow and guide participants to traditional Indigenous philosophies and practices (8 p. 365). Third, in keeping with Hart’s work, Graveline (8) argues that sharing circles should foster solidarity among participants in addition to individual reflexivity. Fourth, mirroring the observations of Tachine et al. (3), Graveline (8) points out the time requirements of sharing circles; a process not to be rushed.
Figure 2 Graveline’s guiding principles of sharing circles. From Graveline (8).
In sum, literature highlights that, more than just a space to share, sharing circles provide an environment for reflexive listening, cultural continuity, and community-building. For example, work by sociologist Steven Picou (4) found that talking circles provided an avenue for Alaskan Natives to mitigate the social impacts of the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill. In another study, Waddell et al. (9) utilized a sharing circle approach to better understand resources and barriers to mental wellness for Indigenous men. Similarly, a 2020 study by Baldwin et al. (10) utilized a talking circle approach to adapt, implement, and evaluate substance use interventions in three tribes within the United States. Likewise, a study by Greene et al. (11) gathered the experiences of Indigenous women living with HIV through a weekend retreat that culminated in a 3-hour sharing circle which was co-attended by an Elder who offered spiritual and emotional support.
As the above examples highlight, sharing circles can be a culturally relevant and culturally safe way by which to undertake research with Indigenous peoples and communities. In neuroethics research, this method could be utilized in a meaningful and intentional way in the place of focus groups or interviews to advance cultural safety in conversations surrounding neuroethics with Indigenous populations.
Bio: Miles Schaffrick (he/him) is a fourth-year undergraduate student in UBC’s Honours Political Science program as well as the Law & Society minor. Miles’ primary research interests lie in the rapidly developing field of health politics. As such, Miles’ research broadly examines how political actors and institutions influence topics of significance to health. As a settler of German and Austrian ancestry with a background and interest in Indigenous health, Miles supports Neuroethics Canada’s Indigenous research initiatives.
References
1. Boyle Q, van Donkelaar P, Illes J. Methods of Neuroethics. In: Della Sala S. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Behavioral Neuroscience, vol. 1. Elsevier; 2022. p. 240–245. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-819641-0.00122-5
2. Kovach M. Emerging from the margins: Indigenous methodologies. In Strega S, Brown L (eds.) Research as resistance: Revisiting critical, Indigenous, and anti-oppressive approaches. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Canadian Scholar’s Press; 2015. p. 43–64
3. Tachine AR, Bird EY, Cabrera NL. (2016). Sharing circles: An Indigenous methodological approach for researching with groups of Indigenous Peoples. International Review of Qualitative Research. 2016;9: 277–295. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26372209 [Accessed 27th December 2021].
4. Picou JS. The “talking circle” as sociological practice: Cultural transformation of chronic disaster impacts. Sociological Practice. 2000;2(2): 77–97. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/43735710 [Accessed 27th December 2021].
5. Kovach M. Story as Indigenous methodology. In M. Kovach Indigenous methodologies: Characteristics, conversations, and contexts. University of Toronto Press; 2009. p. 94–108
6. Lavallée LF. Practical application of an Indigenous research framework and two qualitative Indigenous research methods: Sharing Circles and Anishnaabe symbol-based reflection. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. 2009;8(1): 21–40. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690900800103 [Accessed 27th December 2021].
7. Carr T, Sedgewick JR, Roberts R, Groot G. The sharing circle method: Understanding Indigenous cancer stories. SAGE Research Methods Cases: Medicine and Health. 2020. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781529711264 [Accessed 27th December 2021].
8. Graveline FJ. Circle as methodology: Enacting an Aboriginal paradigm. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education. 2000;13(4): 361–370. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/095183900413304 [Accessed 27th December 2021].
9. Waddell CM, de Jager MD, Gobeil J, Tacan F, Herron RV, Allan JA, et al. Healing journeys: Indigenous Men’s reflections on resources and barriers to mental wellness. Social Science & Medicine. 2021;270: 113696–8. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113696 [Accessed 27th December 2021].
10. Baldwin JA, Lowe J, Brooks J, Charbonneau-Dahlen BK, Lawrence G, Johnson-Jennings M, et al. Formative research and cultural tailoring of a substance abuse prevention program for American Indian youth: Findings from the intertribal talking circle intervention. Health Promotion Practice. 2020;22(6): 778-785. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839920918551 [Accessed 27th December 2021].
11. Greene S, O’Brien-Teengs D, Whitebird W, Ion A. How Positive Aboriginal Women (PAW) living with HIV talk about their mothering experiences with Child and Family 5 Services in Ontario. Journal of Public Child Welfare. 2014;8(5): 467-490. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/15548732.2014.948253 [Accessed 27th December 2021].
Consumer demand for social robots is increasing, particularly in response to the reduced amounts of social contact children that are getting because of school closures (1). Isolation due to the COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated people’s need for social interaction. Social robots have the ability to listen, emote, and sustain a verbal, or non-verbal conversation with others without spreading disease, making them an increasingly relevant solution to today’s problems. However, it is important to balance the growing excitement for social robots with a careful examination of the ethical issues they raise.
Socially assistive robots are devices intended to provide companionship, education, and healthcare assistance for diverse populations. Current research centers around the use of social robots for ageing populations and children. Social robots’ child-specific uses include support during hospitalization (2,3), support for distress during medical procedures (4), mitigation of the effects of a short-term stressor (5), intervention to improve social skills in children with autism spectrum disorder (6,7), and enhancement of education in the classroom (8).
In order to qualify as a social robot, a device must possess three elements: sensors to detect information, a physical form with actuators to manipulate the environment, and an interface that is able to interact with humans on a social level (9). Social robots’ interactions with humans also follow four key rules; (1) social robots have a physical presence, (2) social robots can flexibly react to novel events, (3) social robots are equipped to realize complex goals, and (4) social robots are capable of social interaction with humans in pursuit of their goals (definition adapted from 10).
Today’s social robotics scene contains robots that are available for research purposes as well as some that are sold commercially to children around the world. The present article will present examples of both types of social robots currently being used.
Huggable
Huggable is a blue and green, bear-shaped social robot created by MIT Media Lab in collaboration with Boston Children’s Hospital. An image of Huggable from MIT Media Lab’s website is shown. Its goal is to bridge the socio-emotional gap between child and parent stress and human resource supply in pediatric hospitals. Huggable wants to close this gap with its ability to “mitigate stress, anxiety, and pain in pediatric patients by engaging them in playful interactions”, as advertised on its website. It is meant to enhance social interactions between children and their teachers or healthcare providers through its fun communication abilities.
Research with Huggable also touched on the importance of the physical embodiment aspect of social robot interaction. An experiment was performed with children to compare the effects of the Huggable robot to a virtual character on a screen and a regular plush teddy bear. They showed that children are “more eager to emotionally connect with and be physically activated by a robot than a virtual character”(11). This is one of the first studies in 2012 to demonstrate the potential of social robots as opposed to other types of pediatric interventions.
Moxie
In terms of commercially available robots, Moxie is one of the newest social robots on the market. A picture of Moxie from the Embodied Inc’s website is included. Her teal colour, and animatronic face, as well as her teardrop-shaped head, give her a unique, yet modern look. According to the manufacturer’s website, Moxie is designed to “help autistic children learn the necessary social skills they need to thrive in the world and to provide them with understanding and engaging company.” Moxie is about 1500$ with a 40$ a monthly subscription after the first year of adoption. A highly expressive social robot, with an emotive electronic face, Moxie is designed to have large eyes, to promote eye contact in children. She presents the child with weekly missions to encourage learning and exploration of different topics related to human experiences, ideas, and life skills like kindness, empathy, and friendship. Guided meditations and breathing exercises can help children regulate their emotions and develop their self-expression in a positive way. The manufacturer’s website claims that children can read to Moxie to build confidence in their verbal ability and increase comprehension. Unstructured play can also help promote creativity and self-reflection. The website includes a page entitled “ The Science Behind Moxie”, which supports some claims made by manufacturers on Moxie’s abilities with other social robot studies. However, the only formal data available on Moxie’s effectiveness comes from a short, preliminary study done by the manufacturers, featuring a very small sample size. Although more research is needed on her effects on children, Moxie is a promising social robot for at-home use!
Researchers and manufacturers alike are continuing to acknowledge the growing potential of social robots for child wellbeing. With possible benefits like decreasing distress during hospitalization (2,3,4), enhancing interactions with others (6,7), and helping to promote healthy emotional regulation in response to stress (5), social robots have a unique set of capabilities to enhance children’s lives. However, more research is needed to establish the effectiveness of specific commercial social robots before manufacturers can soundly claim the benefits of well-researched robots as pertaining to their own product. Furthermore, the security of sensitive information a user shares with a social robot is currently evolving as consumers become more aware of ethical issues surrounding data privacy. Concerns about data security and sharing are being addressed by some, but not all social robot manufacturers. Of those which address data privacy, many statements are brief, and do not offer the consumer enough to make a fully informed, consenting decision on sharing their personal information. This information comes from an analysis performed in our yet unpublished paper, which addresses the greatly variable quality of claims made by social robot manufacturers. Although social robots show great potential for enhancing child well-being, further consideration of ethical issues, as well as re-evaluation of the quality of claims made by manufacturers is needed to enhance consumer’s experiences.
Anna Riminchan was born in Bulgaria, where she spent her early childhood before immigrating to Canada with her family. Anna is currently working towards a Bachelor of Science Degree, majoring in Behavioural Neuroscience and minoring in Visual Arts at the University of British Columbia. In the meantime, she is contributing to advancing research in neuroscience, after which, she plans to pursue a degree in medicine. In her spare time, you can find Anna working on her latest art piece!
2. Farrier CE, Pearson JD, Beran TN. Children’s fear and pain during medical procedures: A quality improvement study with a humanoid robot. Canadian Journal of Nursing Research. 2020 Dec;52(4):328-34.
3. Okita SY. Self–Other’s Perspective Taking: The use of therapeutic robot companions as social agents for reducing pain and anxiety in pediatric patients. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking. 2013 Jun 1;16(6):436-41.
4. Trost MJ, Ford AR, Kysh L, Gold JI, Matarić M. Socially assistive robots for helping pediatric distress and pain: a review of current evidence and recommendations for future research and practice. The Clinical journal of pain. 2019 May;35(5):451.
5. Crossman MK, Kazdin AE, Kitt ER. The influence of a socially assistive robot on mood, anxiety, and arousal in children. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. 2018 Feb;49(1):48.
6. Diehl JJ, Schmitt LM, Villano M, Crowell CR. The clinical use of robots for individuals with autism spectrum disorders: A critical review. Research in autism spectrum disorders. 2012 Jan 1;6(1):249-62.
7. Pennisi P, Tonacci A, Tartarisco G, Billeci L, Ruta L, Gangemi S, Pioggia G. Autism and social robotics: A systematic review. Autism Research. 2016 Feb;9(2):165-83.
8. Belpaeme T, Kennedy J, Ramachandran A, Scassellati B, Tanaka F. Social robots for education: A review. Science robotics. 2018 Aug 15;3(21).
9. del Moral S, Pardo D, Angulo C. Social robot paradigms: An overview. In International Work-Conference on Artificial Neural Networks 2009 Jun 10 (pp. 773-780). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
10. Duffy BR, Rooney C, O’Hare GM, O’Donoghue R. What is a social robot? In10th Irish Conference on Artificial Intelligence & Cognitive Science, University College Cork, Ireland, 1-3 September, 1999. 1999 Sep 1.
11. Jeong S, Breazeal C, Logan D, Weinstock P. Huggable: the Impact of Embodiment on Promoting Socio-Emotional Interactions for Young Pediatric Inpatients. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2018 Apr;21:1-13.
One in three women will experience intimate partner violence (IPV) in their lifetime. Up to 92% of these women will also suffer a brain injury (BI) at the hands of a partner (1,2). To put this in a Canadian perspective, for every 1 NHL player that suffers a concussion, 5,500 Canadian women suffer the same injury due to IPV. It is with these statistics in mind that research teams such as the SOAR project (Supporting Survivors of Abuse and Brain Injury through Research) have been assembled to better understand, characterize, and manage the urgent crisis that is intimate partner violence-related brain injury (IPV-BI).
A major pillar of scientific and clinical interest in IPV-BI research is designing and implementing BI screening tools specific to IPV. Although research teams approach this topic with the intent of better understanding IPV-BI, improving BI diagnostic science, and designing intervention strategies tailored to IPV-BI, careful consideration must be taken to ensure that providing BI screening information will not harm patients in other areas of their lives. To justify any health screening, two criterion must be met: 1) the presence of sufficient risk of a positive result (in other words, the likelihood of a positive result must be deemed significant); and 2) the availability of an evidence-based validated treatment or intervention in the event of a positive result (3–5). Despite these concerns, when limiting perspective to a healthcare silo, the benefits of screening for IPV-BI seem to outweigh the concerns. However, the impacts of screening for IPV-BI outside of the healthcare context must also be considered. Through applying an intersectional lens, which considers the intersection of social categories such as race, gender, class, and other characteristics of marginalization, we recognize the wide-ranging experiences of survivors of IPV and acknowledge we have a responsibility to ensure BI information in other contexts does no harm. Specific to women who have experienced IPV-BI, the legal implications of BI screening information are of particular concern.
My master’s thesis examined the ethico-legal considerations of screening for BI in women who have experienced IPV. The concerns surrounding screening for IPV-BI arise from a history of mental health information, such as depression, anxiety, or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) being weaponized against women in family law proceedings. Not only does this imply BI will be similarly weaponized, but that disorders often diagnosed alongside BI – depression, anxiety, and PTSD – will almost certainly be used in an attempt to prove a woman is unfit to parent. To examine this issue, lawyers were interviewed to elicit their knowledge of IPV, BI, and IPV-BI, as well as the role each may play in Canadian family courts.
Lawyers provided significant insight into how IPV-BI may impact the outcome of parenting disputes in Canadian family law. The major findings can be separated into three themes: (1) education; (2) capacity; (3) causation.
(1) Education
It was clear through the interviews that there is a limited understanding of both IPV and IPV-BI by the legal profession. Despite all participants reporting they have had cases which involved IPV, most reported no formal education on IPV and its complexities or how it should factor into parenting disputes. It is therefore unsurprising that IPV is often dismissed within family law as irrelevant, and foreshadows lawyers being similarly ill-equipped to support clients who have sustained IPV-BI.
(2) Capacity
Capacity, here, refers to either a woman’s ability to give and receive legal instructions because of any deficits caused by the BI, or more importantly, the woman’s capacity to parent. Every participant stated that they would expect the opposing lawyer to use IPV-BI as a means to challenge a woman’s ability to parent. Interestingly, participants also said they would do the exact same thing if they were representing the alleged abuser, despite acknowledging how absurd that may sound. This mirrors the historical instances in family law where stigmatized health disorders such as depression were used to minimize a woman’s parenting capacity.
(3) Causation
Lastly, lawyers emphasized that it would be difficult to prove that IPV caused the BI if there was no physical evidence. Unfortunately, this is often difficult for women and lawyers to provide in situations involving IPV. In the absence of physical evidence showing IPV or IPV-BI, this becomes a situation of hearsay. In these cases, women are either not believed, their experiences of violence are minimized, or the courts acknowledge that the IPV exists but dismiss it as marital conflict and deem it irrelevant to the parenting dispute. Courts may also rely on a physician’s testimony to discuss the implications of BI on tasks relevant to parenting (such as memory). However, not all physicians are well informed on the complexities of IPV-BI. It is therefore difficult for women and their lawyers to find suitable experts who can speak to both IPV and BI appropriately without causing undue harm to women through the testimony of BI and its effects.
Should we continue to screen?
Ultimately, these themes show that IPV-BI does leave women legally vulnerable due to a lack of legal precedent (it has never been seen before), inadequate education surrounding IPV and IPV-BI for legal professionals, and the difficulty in proving causation. It is important to emphasize that the BI is not the problem. Rather, it is inserting it into a legal system that is ill-equipped to appropriately address IPV-BI and which continues to suffer from the influences of sexism and racism. Although I have highlighted issues with screening for IPV-BI, I am not advocating for the cessation of this important practice; however, screening should implement the following recommendations to ensure equitable and ethical care:
Expert allyship: Organizations such as SOAR should have physicians in their team who are well versed in IPV-BI and eager to advocate for women in court.
Trauma-informed legal team: Connecting women to trauma-informed legal professionals ensures women feel supported and both women and their counsel are well-prepared to address IPV and IPV-BI in parenting disputes.
Assessment of parenting capacity: Incorporate an assessment of the patient’s capacity to parent into the screening tool. This may help counteract any allegations immediately, avoiding additional assessments and mitigating the impact these claims may have on the outcome.
Transparent informed consent: It is important that patients know that this information will likely be submitted in a parenting dispute by their spouse’s counsel. Informed consent will ensure patients can adequately prepare with their legal team.
Without implementation of these recommendations, IPV-BI has the potential to become another avenue for the perpetuation of violence post-separation – a common occurrence in outcomes of parenting disputes in Canada. These recommendations call for scientists and clinicians alike to broaden their conception of ethics and contextualize their research within the reality of their participants’ and patients’ lives.
Although current statistics show heterosexual women experience the most severe physical IPV conducive to causing BI, it is important to note that IPV in all of its forms (physical, psychological, sexual, financial, coercive control) and IPV-BI is not exclusive to heterosexual relationships or to people identifying as women. Future research surrounding IPV-BI, IPV-BI screening, and their intersection with law should be expanded to explore the phenomenon with other relationships and identities along the sexuality and gender spectrums.
References
World Health Organization, Department of Reproductive Health and Research, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, South African Medical Research Council. Global and regional estimates of violence against women. WHO. World Health Organization; 2014.
Valera EM, Berenbaum H. Brain injury in battered women. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2003;71(4):797–804.
Arora N, Hjalmarsson C, Lang E, Boyle A, Atkinson P. We should routinely screen for domestic violence (intimate partner violence) in the emergency department. Can J Emerg Med. 2019;21(6):701–5.
McLaughlin KD. Ethical considerations for clinicians treating victims and perpetrators of intimate partner violence. Ethics Behav [Internet]. 2017;27(1):43–52. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2016.1185012
Palmer VJ, Yelland JS, Taft AJ. Ethical complexities of screening for depression and intimate partner violence (IPV) in intervention studies. BMC Public Health. 2011;11(5).
Acknowledgements to Dr. Paul van Donkelaar, Dr. Judy Illes, Dr. Deana Simonetto, and the entire SOAR team for their leadership, support, and contributions to this work.
Neuroethics at the Core 