No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Unrequited
Neurochemical Enhancement of Love
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 June 2015
Abstract:
I raise several concerns with Earp and colleagues' analysis of enhancement through neurochemical modulation of love as a key issue in contemporary neuroethics. These include: (i) strengthening their deflation of medicalization concerns by showing how the objection that love should be left outside of the scope of medicine would directly undermine the goal of medicine; (ii) developing stronger analysis of the social and political concerns relevant to neurochemical modulation of love, by exploring and suggesting possible counters to ways in which 'wellbeing' may be used as a tool of oppression; (iii) providing reasons to support a broad need for ecological investigation of, and indeed ecological education concerning, neurotechnology; (iv) suggesting ways in which philosophy, and the humanities more broadly, remain directly relevant to responding effectively to issues in contemporary neuroethics.
- Type
- Departments and Columns
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015
References
Notes
1. Elhauge, E. I’m not quite dead yet—and other health care observations. Tulsa Law Review 2014;49:607–26, at 619.Google Scholar
2. See also Wudarczyk, OA, Earp, BD, Guastella, A, Savulescu, J. Could intranasal oxytocin be used to enhance relationships? Research imperatives, clinical policy, and ethical considerations. Current Opinion in Psychiatry 2013;26(5):474–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Iezzoni, LI, Rao, SR, DesRoches, CM, Vogeli, C, Campbell, EG. Survey shows that at least some physicians are not always open or honest with patients. Health Affairs 2012;31(2):383–91, at 384.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. See note 1, Elhauge 2014. See also Earp, BD, Sandberg, A, Savulescu, J. The medicalization of love. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2015;24(3):323–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. See Purdy, L. Medicalization, medical necessity, and feminist medicine. Bioethics 2001;15(3):248–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMedGupta, K. Anti-love biotechnologies: Integrating considerations of the social. American Journal of Bioethics 2013;13(11):18–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed See also note 4, Earp et al. 2015, at 330.
6. See Gupta, K. Protecting sexual diversity: Rethinking the use of neurotechnological interventions to alter sexuality. AJOB Neuroscience 2012;3(3):24–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also note 4, Earp et al. 2015, at 328.
7. See note 6, Gupta 2012, at 27.
8. Dodds, S. Choice and control in feminist bioethics. In: MacKenzie, C, Stoljar, N, eds. Relational Autonomy: Feminist Perspectives on Autonomy, Agency and the Social Self. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2000:213–35.Google ScholarMcLeod, C, Sherwin, S. Relational autonomy, self-trust, and health care for patients who are oppressed. In: MacKenzie, C, Stoljar, N, eds. Relational Autonomy: Feminist Perspectives on Autonomy, Agency and the Social Self. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000:259–79.Google ScholarHarbin, A. Disorientation and the medicalization of struggle. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 2014;7(1):99–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. See note 8, Harbin 2014, at 117.
10. See note 8, Dodds 2000, at 217.
11. See note 2, Wudarczyk et al. 2013, at 480–2.
12. Schechtman, M. Empathic access: The missing ingredient in personal identity. Philosophical Explorations: An International Journal for the Philosophy of Mind and Action 2001;4(2):95–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. See note 12, Schechtman 2001, at 102.
14. See note 12, Schechtman 2001, at 106.
15. Fromm, E. Art of loving. New York: Perennial Classics; 2000.Google Scholar
16. Dawkins, R. Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt; 2000.Google Scholar
17. See note 16, Dawkins 2000.
18. McGrath, AE. The Order of Things: Explorations in Scientific Theology. Oxford: Blackwell; 2006, at 58–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar