Ethical concerns have risen surrounding the use of cognitive-enhancing drugs by adults of sound mind and healthy bodies. It is considered inequitable to those who cannot use them for health reasons, thus making it impermissible or immoral for any persons to use these drugs. However, the move to limit the use of these drugs to people with legitimate prescriptions is morally wrong. It is a fact that nearly all facets of life can be made better by the use of these enhancers (Swanson et al., 2008). It is damaging to the society to limit the use of these drugs, as this in turn, caps broad improvements to everyday life. The main issue that could be a problem is the abuse of these drugs as little is known about long-term effects.
There is no logical argument that we should shackle our cognitive abilities if there is room for improvement. The main reason was that it was unnatural for an individual to enhance these abilities. Those who offer this proposition often do not have a clear definition of what natural abilities are or whether they are at their full potential (Six letters published in Nature, 2008). There is a sense of agreement that they should be acceptable to some point until the full effects of abuse are researched and published. Substances like nicotine, caffeine and khat are known to have positive effects on cognitive functioning but are still widely accepted in today’s society.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Therefore, it is irrational and improper to ban or limit the use of pharmaceutical products that have the same effect solely on the argument that it is essentially wrong. Instead, the optimum level of cognitive ability should be searched for. These studies will help find an apparent and quantifiable limit for the use of these drugs (Sahakian et al., 2007). Increasing our intellectual capacity, in a steady way, becomes morally acceptable as a way of molding and creating a better society.
Cognitive enhancement also has a great improvement to everyday living. There are some drugs like Modafinil which improve reaction time, focus and memory in both hale and hearty and impaired persons. The implications of such improvements are positive as it can leader to a safer and more productive society (Szalavitz, 2009). Daily activities like driving, cycling and decision-making are improved drastically. Surgeons, construction-workers and other professionals can benefit greatly from these drugs as their concentration and accuracy are vastly better. Professionals working at their best for the society are an obvious advantage (Maher, 2008).
Cognitive-enhancing drugs find use in the educational sector. Enhanced memory, attention and focus facilitate better study and learning habits. This improves academic performance in the classroom. Disorders like Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) are real in our society that demands success and perfection in multiple areas. These drugs can be used to improve focus in subjects or areas in which ADD or ADHD cause a student to lose interest. These drugs are not readily available to students who have these orders. This makes it impossible for students with multiple interests to get involved with activities that interest them. Cognitive-enhancers improve the student’s capability to multi-task and enhance academic performance (Seven letters published in Nature, 2009). Entertainers are not left behind in this as well. Many athletes have been known to use these cognitive-enhancing drugs to improve focus and overall performance. Impulse decision-making is improved and this greatly influences the overall result of the competition. If the drugs were made legal, this would raise the value and competition of the sport (The President's Council on Bioethics, 2003).
There are some objections that are solely based on religious beliefs which state that synthetic improvement is ungodly. The issue of the definition comes into play and it is important to be all accepting of views so that a standpoint can carry substantial merit. These drugs can be made affordable to all at their point of need if the government and stakeholders research, and find cheaper ways of production and distribution (Enhancing, not cheating, 2007). These benefits come at a price and a society that benefits from these drugs becomes more astute, perform better and hence earn more. A more organized and better developed society will benefit all, even those who cannot afford it (Greely et al., 2008). Not everyone can afford a proper education yet even the lower class citizens reap the benefits from improved healthcare, bus systems, subways and inventions. This will also provide a source of income to purchase more of these cognitive-enhancers. All in all, everybody should be given the right to do as they please with their bodies within the legal boundaries.
References
Editorial: "Enhancing, not Cheating." Nature 450 (2007): 320.
Greely, H., Sahakian, B., Harris, J., Kessler, R. C., Gazzaniga, M., Campbell, P., & Farah, M. J. (2008). Towards responsible use of cognitive-enhancing drugs by the healthy. Nature, 456(7223), 702-705.
Maher, B. "Poll Results: Look Who's Doping." Nature 452 (2008): 674–5.
Sahakian, B., and S. Morein-Zamir. "Professor's Little Helper (Links to an external site.)." Nature 450 (2007): 1157–9
Seven letters published in Nature 457 (2009): 532–3, in response to Greely et al. Nature 2008 commentary.
Six letters published in Nature 451 (2008): 520–1, in response to Sahakian and Morein-Zamir Nature 2007 commentary.
Swanson, J. M., and N. D. Volkow. "Increasing Use of Stimulants Warns of Potential Abuse." Nature 453 (2008): 586.
Szalavitz, M. "Popping Smart Pills: The Case for Cognitive Enhancement (Links to an external site.)." Time Magazine, January 6, 2009.
The President's Council on Bioethics. "'Beyond Therapy': General Reflections." Chapter Six in Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Happiness. Washington, D.C., October 2003.
