Human
enhancement is a subject that has a largely fictional ring to it. However, it is
already happening and its widespread use may be likely in the near
future. Ritalin, a prescription drug for children with attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder, is increasingly being used by healthy adults and
students to enhance their mental ability.
Bioethics expert
Professor John Harris of the University of Manchester states that if the drug
is safe for children to use over a long period of time for a condition that is
not usually life-threatening, then healthy adults should be able to take it
also. He also states that many students are already using the drug illegally
without a prescription. He goes on to argue that it is unethical to stop
healthy people from taking the drug with the evidence that exists proving that
it is safe to use.
However,
Professor Anjan Chatterjee of the University of Pennsylvania argues that there
are too many risks associated with taking Ritalin unless the person is actually
ill. He states that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has labeled it with a
black box, which is the most alarming of the possible warnings, because of its
high potential “for abuse, dependence, risk of sudden death, and serious
adverse effects on the heart.” By legalizing it, he contends that this would
put pressure on students and adults into taking a dangerous drug to perform
better in their studies and careers.
It is
interesting to note that Professor Chatterjee simply takes a conditional stance
against the legalization of using performance-enhancing drugs such as Ritalin
by arguing that it is premature to allow it because more research is necessary
and needs to be disseminated broadly. This highlights the current trend towards
the acceptability of using such drugs to enhance performance. After all, the
medical procedures we deem permissible enhance and extend human life beyond
what is “natural,” as does Ritalin. Some argue that those who have access to
such drugs gain an unfair advantage, but they fail to explain why that is any
more unfair than having access to private tutors or simply being smarter due to
other factors.
And specifically
to address the question of safety, which is the main point that Professor
Harris and Professor Chatterjee disagree on, safe seems to mean safe enough. In
other words, no drug is without risks, giving the consumer the responsibility to
judge the risks given the possible benefits.
Sources:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8106957.stm
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/mindenhancing-drugs-are-they-a-nobrainer-1708988.html
1 comment:
I disagree with Professor John Harris' claim that if a drug has been proved to be 'safe enough,' then it must be available for use to everyone who wants to use it as opposed to only those need the drug to function normally. I do not think there is anything unethical in restricting the use of drugs like Ritalin.
Firstly, let's look at unemployment benefits. In most countries, unemployment benefits are available to only those people who are registered as unemployed, and that is because these people very badly need these benefits to survive and function normally. Nobody argues that the same monetary/non-monetary benefits should be available to other people in the country as well. After all, what is the purpose of starting unemployment benefits? It is reduce the gap, or the divide, between the extremely poor and the extremely rich, thereby providing the extremely poor a way out of the problem, a way into survival. If unemployment benefits were to be provided to everyone in the country just to maintain the policy of fairness, the whole purpose of starting unemployment benefits would be defeated.
And this notion, that of reducing the divide between the better endowed and the worse endowed, is what our whole society is based on. Taxes, health insurance, government subsidies, etc are all different forms of implementation of the above notion, and these various implementations have served well to maintain a key aspect of human civilization: solidarity. There is no public unrest against these policies, and no substantial public unrest against the restricted use of performance enhancing drugs such as Ritalin. However, if the free use of 'safe enough' drugs such as Ritalin is allowed (whether it is actually safe enough or not is an entirely separate debate better handled by experts in medicine and pharmaceutics than us), the whole purpose of eliminating the disadvantages suffered by the mentally weak would be defeated, because everybody would start using drugs such as Ritalin, and hence, the level to which the mentally weak must be raised to eliminate this disadvantage would become even higher.
Post a Comment