In the debate on the ethics of the non-medical use of pharmaceuticals for cognitive performance enhancement in healthy individuals there is a clear division between those who view “cognitive enhancement” as ethically unproblematic and those who see such practices as fraught with ethical problems. Yet another, more subtle issue, relates to the relevance and quality of the contribution of scholarly bioethics to this debate. More specifically, how have various forms of speculation, anticipatory ethics, and methods to predict scientific trends and (...) societal responses augmented or diminished this contribution? In this paper, we use the discussion of the ethics of cognitive enhancement to explore the positive and negative contribution of speculation in bioethics scholarship. First, we review and discuss how speculation has relied on different sets of assumptions regarding the non-medical use of stimulants, namely: terminology and framing; scientific aspects such as efficacy and safety; estimates of prevalence and consequent normalization; and the need for normative reflection and regulatory guidelines. Second, three methodological guideposts are proposed to alleviate some of the pitfalls of speculation: acknowledge assumptions more explicitly and identify the value attributed to assumptions; validate assumptions with interdisciplinary literature; and adopt a broad perspective to promote more comprehensive reflection. We conclude that, through the examination of the controversy about cognitive enhancement, we can employ these methodological guideposts to enhance the value of contributions from bioethics and minimize potential epistemic and practical pitfalls in this case and perhaps in other areas of bioethical debate. (shrink)

This article challenges recent assumptions that physicians may ethically and legally prescribe psychopharmacological enhancement drugs to patients and the counterintuitive notion that in some cases ingesting an enhancement drug constitutes the more ethical choice than forgoing this option. Enhancement proponents have touted modafinil as an ideal mechanism to improve concentration, alertness, and forgo sleep and keep pace with our society's demands. However, patients who use modafinil for these reasons risk potentially severe side effects and addiction, and face unintended consequences related (...) to their cognitive, emotive, and physiological functioning. Importantly, prescribing a controlled substance such as modafinil for performance enhancement and sleep avoidance runs contrary to a physician's ethical duty to the patient and the standard of practice set forth in legal requirements governing the prescription of controlled substances. (shrink)

In the March 2010 edition of Mayo Clinic Proceedings, Drs. Rose and Curry declared that resident physicians have an ethical duty to reduce error during periods of fatigue. Problematically, however, they argued this means ingesting a stimulant for performance enhancement and sleep avoidance during a shift when a resident physician is experiencing fatigue as the more ethical choice than forgoing ingesting a stimulant. Rather than accepting enhancement as an unstoppable technological imperative, this article will examine the underlying motivations for enhancement (...) embedded in our culture and the corresponding legal framework relating to stimulant drugs. Although our society seems to be engaged in a pharmacological arms race of efficiency, competition, and self “betterment,” the FDA has not approved stimulant drugs such as modafinil for PESA. As a result, the off-label use of modafinil for PESA means these individuals are part of a large-scale experiment that poses serious immediate and long-term side effects to the individual user as well as society. (shrink)