Brain Doping: Is Grey Matter an Ethical Matter?
When an athlete uses performance enhancement drugs, he or she is likely to be called unethical and dishonest.
When a student or professor uses brain enhancement drugs, he or she is likely to be called smart and focused.
Is chemically boosting your brain for an unfair advantage over competitors the same as chemically boosting your body for an edge to beat others? That’s the question at the center of a new debate about drugs and cheating.
Originally prescribed for people with medical conditions like attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and narcolepsy, brain enhancement drugs such as Ritalin and Provigil are increasingly being used by students preparing for a test and academics and other professionals gearing up for that big presentation.
Users of the drugs say they are able to focus more intensely, work faster, and be more creative.
So what’s the matter with grey matter boosting? Plenty, say critics of the practice. “The original purpose of medicine is to heal the sick, not turn healthy people into gods,” says biotech author Francis Fukuyama, cautioning that the increasing use of brain-boosting drugs could unfairly create a new category of haves and have-nots. He and other critics question whether the continued use of the drugs for the purpose of mental advantage will change the connection between human struggle and human character-building.
Others see less profound implications, as well as a distinction between brain doping and body doping. “I think the analogy with sports doping is really misleading,” says neuro-psychologist Martha Farah, “because in sports it’s all about competition…who’s the best runner or home run hitter.” For students or academics, Dr. Farah says, “there is an element of competition, but it’s secondary. The main purpose is to try to learn things, to get experience, to write papers, to do experiments. So in that case if you can do it better because you’ve got some drug on board, that would on the face of things seem like a plus.”
Doctors note that the drugs can be addictive and can produce side effects including restlessness and irritability.
But a participant in a radio talk show questioned all the hubbub “Who hasn’t had coffee or cola before an exam or important meeting? The main issue should be whether the substance is safe. If people can do a better job by eating a good breakfast or taking a drug, who should complain?”
Tell us what you think: Should chemical brain doping be considered unethical, just as body doping is? Is it fair for some students to gain an advantage over others by taking brain-boosters before a test like the SAT?
Add Comment Share This
Comments
What the big deal
I believe it is okay to use brain boosting pills for major events such as the LSAT’s or such tests.
Wyndom Hall | 10 months, 4 weeks ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
I do not believe in drugs of any kind
Personally, I do not believe in drugs of any kind, from the doctor or whatever, but if necessary I guess one could use them from the doctor.
esther lee gift | 10 months, 2 weeks ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
Whose life is it?
I have both narcolepsy and ADHD. Two of the most interesting things I encounter are 1) the preoccupation numerous people have of judging the medical care of other people, when it isn’t their role, and 2) along with this, is frequently what I strongly believe to be a feeling of jealousy. A fair number of people become very passionate about a very private matter, that doesn’t involve them at all (except, if I would choose to drive unmediated). Whether I choose to take medication or not, it is completely irrelevant to someone else (excluding above exception). It is actually an unhealthy or a psychopathological response, to be so concerned and emotionally charged with a very personal decision of another person, especially a medical decision. It is also relevant to note, that almost everyone is not a physician, PA or CRNP. In addition to all this, almost no-one, except my doctor, knows all of the relevant information that pertains to deciding on a particular treatment. 2) I usually find numerous people becoming very emotional regarding this subject. A significant part of the time, they exhibit great passion, especially when condemning someone else’s medical treatment which includes the use of stimulants (and I find this also occurring when the discussion involves the therapeutic use of opiods in chronic pain patients). The individual condemning another faces absolutely no risk from the individual who opted to treat their problem with stimulants (as prescribed by a qualified practitioner [or opiods as described above]). If anything, the condemning individual receives the benefit of the other individual’s more “normal” state. By this I mean that these medications facilitate a driver’s ability to focus and prevent them from falling asleep. They increase their reaction time to approaching more normal speed. The sometimes very strong emotional reactions sometimes displayed by individuals with ADHD, are squelched. I could elaborate extensively. I firmly believe, as I have encountered this situation numerous times in the past, that their passion and condemnation is fueled by jealously. Yes, the individual who chooses to condemn the responsible person, choosing the therapy which involves a stimulant [or opiod], probably should not, himself, (if he were placed in the same medical predicament), opt for stimulant [or opiod]. It is clearly evident in communication with these individuals, several things. They perceive that stimulants (which actually are among the safest of ALL medications, including aspirin) to be dangerous. They perceive these drugs to make the prescribed “high”. It is thought by these individuals, that the “euphoric” feeling makes the person become addicted. This doesn’t happen in one with ADHD or narcolepsy. In fact, since the condemning person views substance abuse/addiction so dangerous (it is), than it’s necessary to prevent it at all costs. Research study after study shows that when stimulants are taken as prescribed by a qualified practitioner, it prevents the development of substance abuse in those with ADHD. Also, if one gets “high”, it would be because they have the “disease of addiction” and they are abusing the drug, taking it in excessive quantities. Their body receives a euphoric effect from these drugs. That is not something experienced by someone taking these medications for therapeutic reasons. One of the few dangers stimulants have, is to addicts and abusers, especially those in denial. Someone who is rationale and logical in thought, wouldn’t condemn so passionately, someone who is opting for medical treatment that helps them to become responsible, safe people. Would you want to be on the road with me, unmediated? I strongly question the motivation of anyone who tries to argue against treating a driver who is both has both narcolepsy and ADHD. Would you want someone who abruptly and without warning suddenly falls over (fairly bad injuries resulted each time this occurred before) asleep until they hit the floor (or anything in between them and the floor, [that produced the most injuries]). This problem, in combination and aggravated by a disorder that results in impairment because of the extent of problems in focusing and paying attention. Would you want to be driving or anywhere near someone driving who has this medical profile? When someone can be safely and effectively treated, especially when that treatment prevents substance abuse and addiction and multiple other problems, it is unethical to withhold both a driver’s license and treatment. Another conclusion I come to is this. It is also psychologically unhealthy to be preoccupied with someone else, especially any type of attempt to control the individual’s life. People who demonstrate good mental health, are focused on their own lives, and trying to control their own lives, not actively or passively controlling someone else’s life. They are caught up in debating the right of another person to treat his medical problems.
Ellen Calhoun | 10 months ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
< 1 2 3 (3 pages)