Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T09:38:57.940Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Toward Informed User Decisions About Pharmacological Cognitive Enhancement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 November 2022

Polaris Koi
Polaris Koi*
Affiliation:
University of Turku, Turku, Finland
*
Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Pharmacological cognitive enhancement (PCE) refers to the use of pharmaceuticals to improve cognitive function when that use is not intended to prevent or treat disease. Those who favour a liberal approach to PCE trust users to make informed decisions about whether enhancing is in their best interest. The author argues that making informed decisions about PCE requires a nuanced risk-benefit analysis that is not accessible to many users. Presently, the PCE use of prescription medications such as methylphenidate and modafinil is widespread but most commonly happens without medical supervision. Direct and indirect barriers generate a situation where the risks and benefits of PCE are inequitably distributed; as a result, PCE is sometimes not in the user’s best interest. This is likely to also be the case for future pharmaceuticals. As a result, even if PCE pharmaceuticals were equitably distributed, its associated risks and benefits would not be. The article concludes with a discussion of the prospects of the clinical consultation on one hand, and e-health solutions on the other, in ameliorating the situation, arguing for cautious optimism.

Keywords

human enhancementpharmacological cognitive enhancementcognitive functionrisk-benefit analysismethylphenidatemodafinile-healthdecisionmaking
Type
Research Article
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , October 2022 , pp. 545 - 556
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Dresler, M, Sandberg, A, Ohla, K, Bublitz, C, Trenado, C, Mroczko-Wasowicz, A, et al. Non-pharmacological cognitive enhancement. N europharmacology 2013;64:529–43CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

2. Bostrom, N, Sandberg, A. Cognitive enhancement: Methods, ethics, regulatory challenges. Science & Engineering Ethics 2009;15:311–41Google Scholar, at 323.

3. Rakic, V. Commentary: Cognitive enhancement: Are the claims of critics “good enough”? Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2017;26(4):693–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

4. Faber, N, Savulescu, J, Douglas, T. Why is cognitive enhancement deemed unacceptable? The role of fairness, deservingness, and hollow achievements. Frontiers in Psychology 2016;7:232 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

5. Maslen, H, Faudmüller, N, Savulescu, J. Pharmacological cognitive enhancement—how neuroscience could advance ethical debate. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience 2014:8. doi:10.3389/fnsys.2014.00107 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed .

6. Bognar G. Enhancement and equality. Ethical Perspectives 2012;19(1):11–32.

7. Greely, H, Sahakian, B, Harris, J, Kessler, RC, Gazzaniga, M, Campbell, P, et al. Towards responsible use of cognitive enhancing drugs by the healthy. Nature 2008;456(7224):702–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed, at 705.

8. Metzinger T, Hildt E. Cognitive enhancement. In: Illes J, Sahakian B, eds. Oxford Handbook of Neuroethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012:245–64, at 259.

9. Habermas J. The Future of Human Nature. Cambridge: Polity Press; 2003.

10. Schaefer, GO, Kahane, G, Savulescu, J. Autonomy and enhancement. Neuroethics 2014;7:123–36CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

11. See note 8, Metzinger, Hildt, at 359. Italics in the original.

12. See note 7, Greely et al. 2008, at 705.

13. See note 7, Greely et al. 2008.

14. Compton, WM, Han, B, Blanco, C, Johnson, K, Jones, CM. Prevalence and correlates of prescription stimulant use, misuse, use disorders, and motivations for misuse among adults in the United States. The American Journal of Psychiatry 2018;175:741–55CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

15. Ricci G. Pharmacological human enhancement: An overview of the looming bioethical and regulatory challenges. Frontiers in Psychiatry 2020;11:53. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00053.

16. Asprey D. Game Changers: What Leaders, Innovators and Mavericks Do to Win at Life. London: Thorsons; 2018:54.

17. Petersen MA, Enghoff O, Demant J. The uncertainties of enhancement: A mixed-methods study on the use of substances for cognitive enhancement and it’s unintended consequences. Performance Enhancement and Health 2019;6:111–20.

18. See also Ilieva IP, Boland J, Farah MJ. Objective and subjective cognitive enhancing effects among college students: Prescription status, motives, theory of planned behavior, knowledge and self-diagnostic. Neuropharmacology 2013;64:496–505.

19. See, for example, Cortese S, Adamo N, Del Giovane C, Mohr-Jensen C, Hayes AJ, Carucci S, et al. Comparative efficacy and tolerability of medications for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in children, adolescents, and adults: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. The Lancet Psychiatry 2018;5(9):727–38.

20. See note 2, Bostrom, Sandberg.

21. See note 18, Cortese et al. 2018.

22. Repantis D, Schlattmann P, Laisney O, Heuser I. Modafinil and methylphenidate for neuroenhancement in healthy individuals: A systematic review. Pharmacological Research 2010;62:187–206.

23. Herstentein E, Feige B, Gmeiner T, Kienzler C, Spiegelhalder K, Johann A, et al. Insomnia as a predictor of mental disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sleep Medicine Reviews 43: 96–105.

24. Malloy-Diniz LF, Miranda DM, Grassi-Oliveira R. Editorial: Executive functions in psychiatric disorders. Frontiers in Psychology 2017;8:1461. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01461.

25. See note 14, Compton et al. 2018; See also Singh I, Bard I, Jackson J. Robust resilience and substantial interest: A survey of pharmacological cognitive enhancement among university students in the UK and Ireland. Plos One 2014;9(1):e105969.

26. Sahakian, BJ, JL, LaBuzetta. Bad Moves: How Decision Making Goes Wrong, And the Ethics of Smart Drugs. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013:120 Google Scholar.

27. See note 17, Petersen et al. 2019.

28. See note 17, Petersen et al. 2019.

29. European Medicines Agency. Assessment Report for Modafinil Containing Medicinal Products. London: EMA. EMA/4038/2011.

30. See, for example, Dubljevic V. Prohibition or coffee shops: Regulation of amphetamine and methylphenidate for enhancement use by healthy adults. American Journal of Bioethics 2013;13(7):23–33.

31. See note 14, Compton et al. 2018.

32. See note 14, Compton et al. 2018, at 743.

33. Morley J, Floridi L. The limits of empowerment: How to reframe the role of mHealth tools in the healthcare ecosystem. Science and Engineering Ethics 2020;26(3):1159–83.

34. Topol EJ. High-performance medicine: the convergence of human and artificial intelligence. Nature Medicine 2019;25:44–56.

35. Wilkowska W, Ziefle M. Privacy and data security in e-health: Requirements from the user’s perspective. Health Informatics Journal 2012;18(1):191–201.

36. Johannes B, Graaf D, Blatt B, George D, Gonzalo JD. A multi-site exploration of barriers faced by vulnerable patient populations: A qualitative analysis exploring the needs of patients for targeted interventions in new models of care delivery. Primary Health Care Research & Development 2018; https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/primary-health-care-research-and-development/article/multisite-exploration-of-barriers-faced-by-vulnerable-patient-populations-a-qualitative-analysis-exploring-the-needs-of-patients-for-targeted-interventions-in-new-models-of-care-delivery/ 20(e61): 1–11. doi: 10.1017/S1463423618000385