Columbia Science Review
  • Home
  • About
    • Executive Board
    • Editorial Board
  • Blog
  • Events
    • 2022-2023
    • 2021-2022
    • 2020-2021
    • 2019-2020
    • 2018-2019
    • 2017-2018
    • 2016-2017
  • Publications
  • COVID-19 Public Hub
    • Interviews >
      • Biology of COVID-19
      • Public Health
      • Technology & Data
    • Frontline Stories >
      • Healthcare Workers
      • Global Health
      • Volunteer Efforts
    • Resources & Links >
      • FAQ's
      • Resource Hubs
      • Student Opportunities
      • Podcasts & Graphics
      • Mental Health Resources
      • Twitter Feeds
      • BLM Resources
    • Columbia Events >
      • Campus Events
      • CUMC COVID-19 Symposium
      • CSR Events
    • Our Team
  • Contact

Digital Pills: Biomedical Big Brother, or Ethical Public Health Tool?

2/18/2018

1 Comment

 
Picture
By Kelly Butler

​On November 13th, the Food And Drug Administration (FDA) approved Abilify MyCite, the first medication tracking system intended for public use. While the schizophrenia drug Abilify has been on the market for decades, the new Abilify MyCite system includes an ingestible sensor and wearable receiver patch, which detects when patients swallow the sensor and then transmits data to a web-based portal. Patients can always access their pill ingestion data on their smart phones, and they can also grant portal access to their doctors, family, and other caregivers. More far-reaching than a single new treatment option for psychosis, Abilify MyCite represents a new biomedical trend. For example, Peter Chai and his research team at Harvard Medical School developed digital opioids to study patient opioid use after bone fractures. Accordingly, the ethics of digital pills should be considered in the broader public health context rather than through the comparatively narrow lens of psychosis treatment.

As Pam Belluck explains in a New York Times op-ed, digital pills could improve public health by increasing patient compliance. Millions of patients do not take their prescriptions as directed, causing them medical and financial harm. Failure to take medications often leads to deteriorating health and costly emergency medical treatments, including hospital admissions. Granting others access to pill-ingestion data could motivate patients to take medications as prescribed, helping them ameliorate their health and avoid financial burden. Pointing to another benefit of digital pills, Belluck also notes that the technology may be especially useful for elderly patients who want to take their medications but often forget. It could also eliminate the need for medication ingestion witnesses, which patients and nurses alike may find inconvenient and uncomfortable. Given these potential benefits, some experts have argued that digital pills have the potential to improve public health and should thus be made available to the public. Moreover, such arguments may praise the patient’s decision to use the technology and their subsequent control of who can access their data as cure-alls for any ethical concerns.

While taking the digital pill and sharing data are presented as optional, there are many foreseeable cases in which these “choices” are not really up to the patient. Psychiatrist Dr. Peter Kramer nicely summarizes the technology’s potential for abuse: “While ethical for a fully competent patient who wants to lash him or herself to the mast, ‘digital drug’ sounds like a potentially coercive tool.” For example, doctors and family members may talk patients into using the tracking system, convincing them that surrendering their privacy is in their best interest.  In addition, what if somebody is deemed unfit to provide consent; would that make it okay to use the ingestible sensor without his or her permission? There is thus a slippery-slope problem regarding when doctors and family members can make patients take digital medication and share their pill-ingestion data. While digital pills like Abilify MyCite have the potential to improve patient health by motivating and reminding them to take their medications, they could easily become mechanisms of coercion within medicine, a field in which patient consent is the gold standard.

As the Abilify MyCite and opioid studies respectively demonstrate, medication tracking technology clearly has the potential to improve public health by increasing patient compliance and decreasing controlled substance abuse. However, digital pills come with serious ethical concerns. As scientists further develop the technology for increased public use, stringent guidelines must be established to ensure proper patient consent. For example, the guidelines could mandate that the digital pills could only be used for patients capable of consenting and that their doctor present the digital pill option in the absence of others who may impact their decision. This ethical debate about digital pill usage underscores a larger concern with biotechnology. Thanks to rapid advancements in biomedical engineering, scientists are continuously developing new medical devices that can improve patient health. We know how to use these new technologies, but the more important question is whether we should use them.

Please let us know in the comments what you think of digital pills.
​

Kelly is a sophomore in Columbia College studying biochemistry. Outside of academics, she enjoys dancing and non-profit work.
1 Comment

    Categories

    All
    Artificial Intelligence
    Halloween 2022
    Winter 2022-2023

    Archives

    February 2023
    November 2022
    October 2022
    June 2022
    January 2022
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    November 2019
    October 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    November 2017
    October 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010
    December 2009
    November 2009
    July 2009
    May 2009

Columbia Science Review
© COPYRIGHT 2022. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Photos used under Creative Commons from driver Photographer, BrevisPhotography, digitalbob8, Rennett Stowe, Kristine Paulus
  • Home
  • About
    • Executive Board
    • Editorial Board
  • Blog
  • Events
    • 2022-2023
    • 2021-2022
    • 2020-2021
    • 2019-2020
    • 2018-2019
    • 2017-2018
    • 2016-2017
  • Publications
  • COVID-19 Public Hub
    • Interviews >
      • Biology of COVID-19
      • Public Health
      • Technology & Data
    • Frontline Stories >
      • Healthcare Workers
      • Global Health
      • Volunteer Efforts
    • Resources & Links >
      • FAQ's
      • Resource Hubs
      • Student Opportunities
      • Podcasts & Graphics
      • Mental Health Resources
      • Twitter Feeds
      • BLM Resources
    • Columbia Events >
      • Campus Events
      • CUMC COVID-19 Symposium
      • CSR Events
    • Our Team
  • Contact