Abstract
The topic of enhancement emerges as a novel, contemporary problem in medical ethics. In particular, neuroenhancement reveals itself as a challenging subject due to the advancements of neuroscience. At present, pharmacological neuroenhancement is widely debated, but only scarce empirical data exist regarding its prevalence. Arguments for and against neuroenhancement relate to various disciplines, such as medicine, anthropology, sociology, and classical ethics. Medical considerations caution against the use of pharmaceutical neuroenhancers because of medical risks, the lack of evidence-based medicine, and financial challenges to health care systems. Perspectives on neuroenhancement from the humanities involve the concepts of human nature, virtue ethics, liberty, and justice. The purposes behind neuroenhancement are disputable with regard to their social value. In conclusion, neuroenhancement appears to remain a controversial phenomenon.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
American Psychiatric Association (2000) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders DSM-IV-TR. 4th edn, Text revision. American Psychiatric Association, Arlington
Banjo OC, Nadler R, Reiner PB (2010) Physician attitudes towards pharmacological cognitive enhancement: safety concerns are paramount. PLoS One 5(12):e14322
Beauchamp TL, Childress JF (2009) Principles of biomedical ethics. Oxford University Press, Oxford/New York
Bostrom N, Sandberg A (2009) Cognitive enhancement: methods, ethics, regulatory challenges. Sci Eng Ethics 15:311–341
Brukamp K, Groß D (2012) Neuroenhancement – a controversial topic in contemporary medical ethics. In: Clark PA (ed) Contemporary issues in bioethics. InTech, Rijeka
Franke AG, Bonertz C, Christmann M, Huss M, Fellgiebel A, Hildt E, Lieb K (2011) Non-medical use of prescription stimulants and illicit use of stimulants for cognitive enhancement in pupils and students in Germany. Pharmacopsychiatry 44(2):60–66
Galert T, Bublitz C, Heuser I, Merkel R, Repantis D, Schöne-Seifert B, Talbot D (2009) Das optimierte Gehirn. Gehirn und Geist 11:1–12
Greely H, Sahakian B, Harris J, Kessler RC, Gazzaniga M, Campbell P, Farah MJ (2008) Towards responsible use of cognitive-enhancing drugs by the healthy. Nature 456:702–705
Hildt E (2011) Neuroenhancement bubble? – neuroenhancement wave! Am J Bioeth Neurosci 2(4):44–47
Illes J, Kann D, Karetsky K, Letourneau P, Raffin TA, Schraedley-Desmond P, Koenig BA, Atlas SW (2004) Advertising, patient decision making, and self-referral for computed tomographic and magnetic resonance imaging. Arch Intern Med 164:2415–2419
Kirsch I, Deacon BJ, Huedo-Medina TB, Scoboria A, Moore TJ, Johnson BT (2008) Initial severity and antidepressant benefits: a meta-analysis of data submitted to the Food and Drug Administration. PLoS Med 5(2):e45
Larriviere D, Williams MA, Rizzo M, Bonnie RJ, on behalf of the AAN Ethics, Law and Humanities Committee (2009) Responding to requests from adult patients for neuroenhancements. Guidance of the Ethics, Law and Humanities Committee. Neurology 73:1406–1412
Maher B (2008) Poll results: look who’s doping. Nature 452:674–675
Metzinger T (2006) Intelligente Drogenpolitik für die Zukunft. Gehirn und Geist 1–2:32–37
Mintzes B, Barer ML, Kravitz RL, Bassett K, Lexchin J, Kazanjian A, Evans RG, Pan R, Marion SA (2003) How does direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) affect prescribing? A survey in primary care environments with and without legal DTCA. Can Med Assoc J 169(5):405–412
Mintzes B, Morgan S, Wright JM (2009) Twelve years’ experience with direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs in Canada: a cautionary tale. PLoS One 4(5):e5699
Parens E (2005) Authenticity and ambivalence: toward understanding the enhancement debate. Hastings Cent Rep 35(3):34–41
Racine E (2010) Pragmatic neuroethics: improving treatment and understanding of the mind-brain. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Racine E, Forlini C (2009) Expectations regarding cognitive enhancement create substantial challenges. J Med Ethics 35:469–470
Repantis D, Laisney O, Heuser I (2010a) Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and memantine for neuroenhancement in healthy individuals: a systematic review. Pharmacol Res 61:473–481
Repantis D, Schlattmann P, Laisney O, Heuser I (2010b) Modafinil and methylphenidate for neuroenhancement in healthy individuals: a systematic review. Pharmacol Res 62(3):187–206
Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS (1996) Evidence-based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. Br Med J 312(7023):71–72
Singh I, Kelleher KJ (2010) Neuroenhancement in young people: proposal for research, policy, and clinical management. Am J Bioeth Neurosci 1(1):3–16
The President’s Council on Bioethics (2003) Beyond therapy: biotechnology and the pursuit of happiness. The President’s Council on Bioethics, Washington, DC
World Health Organization (2007) International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems. 10th revision. Version for 2007. apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online. Accessed 4 May 2011
World Medical Association (1964/2008) Declaration of Helsinki – ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Helsinki, 1964/2008. www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/index.html. Accessed 4 May 2011
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Brukamp, K. (2013). Better Brains or Bitter Brains? The Ethics of Neuroenhancement. In: Hildt, E., Franke, A. (eds) Cognitive Enhancement. Trends in Augmentation of Human Performance, vol 1. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6253-4_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6253-4_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-6252-7
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-6253-4
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)