 |
| http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3257/2668692943_1d8a94cf4e_m. |
As society progresses and expands in all aspects, namely
science, the use of cognitive enhancing drugs becomes more prevalent. The question then arises, is all progress for the benefit of society? The main issue of boundaries becomes apparent with the implications of cognitive enhancing drugs. Studies have found that as many as five to fifteen percent of all American college students illegally use cognitive enhancing drugs on a regular basis (Nature 1). Although many argue for the use of cognitive enhancing drugs by the healthy, the negative impacts on society that would stem from this occurrence outweigh the positive societal implications.
Cognitive enhancing drugs are an amazing innovation, which are readily available - the most common types are Ritalin, Adderall, and Vyvanse - to any person with attention deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD); promising to solve their issues with focusing and restore their cognitive abilities despite the hyperactivity of their brain. Cognitive enhancing drugs work by releasing stimulants into the body that slow down the release of the “attention” chemicals by the brain, increasing a person's ability to concentrate as well as their focus/energy level (this basic description hopefully saved you from having to decode some medical jargon). So what will happen when a healthy person without ADHD takes the medication? It allows them to focus more intensely for a longer period of time with few side effects (Springer). A focal point of the argument for the use of cognitive enhancing drugs by the healthy is the fact that the effects of the drug are so potent in increasing a person’s cognitive fortitude. There is evidence that as many as 36% of a student population at a certain college (Springer) is utilizing these drugs, and this fuels the argument; if so many kids are taking this drug, then it must be fine for use by the rest of society.
science, the use of cognitive enhancing drugs becomes more prevalent. The question then arises, is all progress for the benefit of society? The main issue of boundaries becomes apparent with the implications of cognitive enhancing drugs. Studies have found that as many as five to fifteen percent of all American college students illegally use cognitive enhancing drugs on a regular basis (Nature 1). Although many argue for the use of cognitive enhancing drugs by the healthy, the negative impacts on society that would stem from this occurrence outweigh the positive societal implications.
Cognitive enhancing drugs are an amazing innovation, which are readily available - the most common types are Ritalin, Adderall, and Vyvanse - to any person with attention deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD); promising to solve their issues with focusing and restore their cognitive abilities despite the hyperactivity of their brain. Cognitive enhancing drugs work by releasing stimulants into the body that slow down the release of the “attention” chemicals by the brain, increasing a person's ability to concentrate as well as their focus/energy level (this basic description hopefully saved you from having to decode some medical jargon). So what will happen when a healthy person without ADHD takes the medication? It allows them to focus more intensely for a longer period of time with few side effects (Springer). A focal point of the argument for the use of cognitive enhancing drugs by the healthy is the fact that the effects of the drug are so potent in increasing a person’s cognitive fortitude. There is evidence that as many as 36% of a student population at a certain college (Springer) is utilizing these drugs, and this fuels the argument; if so many kids are taking this drug, then it must be fine for use by the rest of society.
 |
| http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8516/8436514405_f1b18bfd77_m.jpg |
An accompanying argument for the drugs is the “lifestyle argument” that states that cognitive enhancing drugs are appropriate for everyday use because they enhance the lives of their users; allowing them to “be all they can be” in their everyday lives. This argument is supported by research that displays the minimization of the side effects of these drugs as the science progresses. Those who support the utilization of these drugs by the healthy state that there are few valid oppositions to their cause despite the commonplace “morality” argument because, after all, using these drugs without a prescription is illegal (Nature 1). But even this argument seems ambiguous in todays society where morals always appear to be relative and where there are fewer and fewer examples of true right. However, there are a multitude of valid reasons for the opposition of this issue; they are just not easily visible in the argument as portrayed in the public sphere due to the lack of extensive research and the prominence of the public opinion over facts.
The opposition to the healthy using cognitive enhancing drugs is not as straightforward as the proponent's platform pertaining to said issue. One major point of opposition is the negative side effects that cognitive enhancing drugs will have on society if used on a mass scale. The use of cognitive enhancing drugs over an extended period of time causes an individual (those with ADHD included) to become monotonous over time, possibly experience a loss of unique identity, and develop a self-focused viewpoint (Lanclet) - this is basically implying that the individual becomes a “zombie,” for lack of a better word. If these side effects were to become apparent across society then the overall societal composition would change and interactions would shift as individuals began to become “less” in the social sphere. Cognitive enhancing drugs being widely utilized by the healthy would have a negative impact of unknown proportions on society, displaying the need for more research to be done and the public sphere properly informed of the negative implications.
The opposition to the healthy using cognitive enhancing drugs is not as straightforward as the proponent's platform pertaining to said issue. One major point of opposition is the negative side effects that cognitive enhancing drugs will have on society if used on a mass scale. The use of cognitive enhancing drugs over an extended period of time causes an individual (those with ADHD included) to become monotonous over time, possibly experience a loss of unique identity, and develop a self-focused viewpoint (Lanclet) - this is basically implying that the individual becomes a “zombie,” for lack of a better word. If these side effects were to become apparent across society then the overall societal composition would change and interactions would shift as individuals began to become “less” in the social sphere. Cognitive enhancing drugs being widely utilized by the healthy would have a negative impact of unknown proportions on society, displaying the need for more research to be done and the public sphere properly informed of the negative implications.
 |
| http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5303/5632183884_eba4c0253c_m.jpg |
Though the major argument that the widespread use of cognitive enhancing drugs could negatively alter society asserts validity, the main concern over this topic should be in the subtle issues that will accompany its implementation. One such issue that will become apparent is the issue of access. Once these drugs are available to society as a whole, society will have to decide if it is fair to exclude those that cannot afford these drugs while those who can afford this innovation are enjoying the benefits (Lanclet). If this conclusion is reached, then this may create a vicious cycle of “cognitive oppression” where those who cannot afford the drug are unable to attain the societal level of those who can afford the cognitive enhancing drug. Yes, this possiblity is unimaginable, but it is logical when viewed in the scope of history; examples of similar occurrences are the previous need to own land to be a citizen or, more recently, the growing need for a college education in today's job market - just some food for thought on this discussion’s wide implications.
A second subtle yet revealing implication of cognitive enhancing drugs permeating society is the loss of societal value that will occur (Lanclet). When all of society is able to function at a high cognitive level, natural talent will be indistinguishable and its value left unappreciated. This will result in the shift of the nature of society as we become more dependent on innovations - that could be considered crutches - to complete moderate tasks and, eventually, to simply survive. The potential widespread use of cognitive enhancing drugs by the healthy is accompanied by subtle yet important implications that are strong indicators of the negative impact that this implementation could have on society.
An interesting philosophical issue that will become apparent is the definition of medicine; is it acceptable for medicine to not solely cure but to enhance a person (BMJ). This is not an issue of major concern but a commentary on the cultural nature as a whole pertaining to the influence level innovations will have on society in the future. This issue also delineates the far-reaching, possibly history transcending, implications that this decision could have on the progressive aspects of culture.
Cognitive enhancing drugs are an innovation that is the companion of the progressive nature of the scientific community; it is the decision regarding their use by the healthy that is the important discussion. The many advocates of the use of cognitive enhancing drugs by the healthy focus their argument on the wide improvements this drug could make in peoples lives as well as the lack of credible research opposing this issue. Although these issues are valid, the many negative implications of this action - societal side effects, unequal distribution, loss of societal value, and larger cultural issues - outweigh the benefits of the widespread use of cognitive enhancing drugs by the healthy.
Bibliography
Enhancing, Not Cheating (Nature 1)
Bard, Imre, and Ilina Singh. "Enhancing, Not Cheating."Nature. 450.320 (2007): n. page. Web. 5 Feb. 2013. <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v450/n7168/full/450320a.html>.
Cognitive Enhancement Causes Ethical Concerns (Lancet)
Butcher, James. "Cognitive Enhancement Causes Ethical Concerns." Lancet. 362.9378 (2003): 132-133. Web. 5 Feb. 2013. <http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(03)13897-4/fulltext.
The use of methylphenidate among students: the future of enhancement? (BMJ)
Outram, Simon. "The use of methylphenidate among students: the future of enhancement?." Journal of Medical Ethics. 36. (2010): 198-292. Web. 5 Feb. 2013. <http://jme.bmj.com/content/36/4/198.full>.
Cognitive Enhancement, Lifestyle Choice or Misuse of Prescription Drugs? (Springer)
Forlini, Cynthia, and Racine Racine. "Cognitive Enhancement, Lifestyle Choice or Misuse of Prescription Drugs?." Neuroethics. 3.1 (2010): 1-4. Web. 5 Feb. 2013. <http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12152-008-9023-7?LI=true>.
Towards responsible use of cognitive-enhancing drugs by the healthy (Nature 2)
Greely, Henry, Barbara Sahakian, et al. "Towards responsible use of cognitive-enhancing drugs by the healthy." Nature. 456. (2008): 702-705. Web. 5 Feb. 2013. <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v456/n7223/full/456702a.html>.
A second subtle yet revealing implication of cognitive enhancing drugs permeating society is the loss of societal value that will occur (Lanclet). When all of society is able to function at a high cognitive level, natural talent will be indistinguishable and its value left unappreciated. This will result in the shift of the nature of society as we become more dependent on innovations - that could be considered crutches - to complete moderate tasks and, eventually, to simply survive. The potential widespread use of cognitive enhancing drugs by the healthy is accompanied by subtle yet important implications that are strong indicators of the negative impact that this implementation could have on society.
An interesting philosophical issue that will become apparent is the definition of medicine; is it acceptable for medicine to not solely cure but to enhance a person (BMJ). This is not an issue of major concern but a commentary on the cultural nature as a whole pertaining to the influence level innovations will have on society in the future. This issue also delineates the far-reaching, possibly history transcending, implications that this decision could have on the progressive aspects of culture.
Cognitive enhancing drugs are an innovation that is the companion of the progressive nature of the scientific community; it is the decision regarding their use by the healthy that is the important discussion. The many advocates of the use of cognitive enhancing drugs by the healthy focus their argument on the wide improvements this drug could make in peoples lives as well as the lack of credible research opposing this issue. Although these issues are valid, the many negative implications of this action - societal side effects, unequal distribution, loss of societal value, and larger cultural issues - outweigh the benefits of the widespread use of cognitive enhancing drugs by the healthy.
Bibliography
Enhancing, Not Cheating (Nature 1)
Bard, Imre, and Ilina Singh. "Enhancing, Not Cheating."Nature. 450.320 (2007): n. page. Web. 5 Feb. 2013. <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v450/n7168/full/450320a.html>.
Cognitive Enhancement Causes Ethical Concerns (Lancet)
Butcher, James. "Cognitive Enhancement Causes Ethical Concerns." Lancet. 362.9378 (2003): 132-133. Web. 5 Feb. 2013. <http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(03)13897-4/fulltext.
The use of methylphenidate among students: the future of enhancement? (BMJ)
Outram, Simon. "The use of methylphenidate among students: the future of enhancement?." Journal of Medical Ethics. 36. (2010): 198-292. Web. 5 Feb. 2013. <http://jme.bmj.com/content/36/4/198.full>.
Cognitive Enhancement, Lifestyle Choice or Misuse of Prescription Drugs? (Springer)
Forlini, Cynthia, and Racine Racine. "Cognitive Enhancement, Lifestyle Choice or Misuse of Prescription Drugs?." Neuroethics. 3.1 (2010): 1-4. Web. 5 Feb. 2013. <http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12152-008-9023-7?LI=true>.
Towards responsible use of cognitive-enhancing drugs by the healthy (Nature 2)
Greely, Henry, Barbara Sahakian, et al. "Towards responsible use of cognitive-enhancing drugs by the healthy." Nature. 456. (2008): 702-705. Web. 5 Feb. 2013. <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v456/n7223/full/456702a.html>.
No comments:
Post a Comment