third essay for college writing... hated writign it took sooo damn long

Abstract

As the increasing usage of neuroenhancers reaches our awareness, so does the rise in concerns about neuroenhancers. Should they be used only to treat illness or inadequacies, or should they be allowed to enhance our brain functions? Drawing on Richard Dee’s (2007) and Margret Talbot’s (2009) articles, this paper focuses on three main issues regarding how neuroenhancers are obtained, cheating, and coercion. These issues help play a role in determining why neuroenhancers should only be used to treat illness or inadequacies. This essay is intended to enlighten its readers about the increasing use of neuroenhancers and some complications of its use.

Literature Review

Richard Dees (2007) article, “Better Brains, Better Selves? The ethics of neuroenhancers” talks about whether the use of neuroenhancements is morally suspect, unethical, or if it is ethical. He uses our right to autonomy as a way of supporting the ethical use of neuroenhancers. He also uses the idea that coercion is not a contender against neuroenhancers because; we can create separate leagues or classes into a class that uses neuroenhancers and one that doesn’t allow the use of them. He also uses the idea that if we go into a field that primarily uses them that we should consider not going into that field unless we are going to use them. He gives us the example of a model needing to use plastic surgery to be deemed adequate in her field from this Dee’s (2007) says that essentially if she doesn’t want to have plastic surgery to alter her appearance to better suit the mainstream idea of beauty then she should not go into modeling. He claims that since we allow other inequalities in our society that we must also allow for any inequality that permitting the use of neuroenhancers may produce.

Margaret Talbot’s (2009) article, “From brain gain: the underground world of "neuroenhancing" drugs” says that there is a competitive environment in school and jobs and that using neuroenhancers is more of a survival situation. She also states that students have many different areas of focus: school, work, home, social, etc. Neuroenhancers help them to focus and be more productive (Talbot, 2009.) She, like Dees (2007), also brings up the idea of autonomy. Talbot (2009) says that she even used NoDoz tablets, caffeine pills, to write papers in college and likens them to taking neuroenhancers. She couples this with her example of Seltzer, a transhumanist, who sees no wrong in trying to push back the upper limitations on out intelligence. Talbot(2009) says that cheating is also an issue because according to the Nature Poll, a survey, parents were shown to approve of giving their kids neuroenhancers in order to give them an advantage in school. The fairness of this advantage can be questioned. She also refers to work as “slave drivers”, trying to get the most out of their employees as they can. She uses the following quote to connect the lagging economy of the time and the competitive environment at work to the increasing pressure on employees or prospective employees to use neuroenhancers to gain an edge over those who don’t. “Neuroenhancers are perfectly suited to the white-collar competition in a floundering economy.”(Talbot, 2009, p707 in textbook) In saying this Talbot (2009) refers to the culture of work which wants us to be more productive and efficient and in turn promotes the use of neuroenhancers because of their ability to promote focus and productivity. Talbot (2009) also gives us an example of Alex, a student, who took neuroenhancers in order to succeed in school. He learned from his brother who also took neuroenhancers, what typical symptoms would lead to a doctor prescribing this medicine. Alex described these symptoms, which he did not have, to a doctor in order to obtain a prescription of Adderall, a neuroenhancer.

Reading these two articles brings many questions to mind when trying to determine a stance on neuroenhancers. Since most of these neuroenhancements seem to need a doctor’s approval are they being given out to wrongfully treat some fake inadequacy or illness as we have seen in Talbot’s example of Alex? If so this would give rise to cheating because they are not available to all the public without doctor’s approval and it would give unfair advantage over the average person. If more and more people started taking these drugs to get ahead of the game wouldn’t it also cause more pressure on the average person who doesn’t use neuroenhancers to take them because they would seem inadequate without them? I will try to answer these issues in my essay.

Neuroenhancers Brain Gain or Fairness Drain?

Neuroenhancers should only be used to treat an illness or deficit in a person because they were originally prescribed as such and if not used in this way it gives rise to cheating as well as coercion, pressure to take them.

Neuroenhancers were originally prescribed for many treatments in our society. You can’t just go to the store and get them. You have to have a prescription or the recommendation of a doctor. The doctor must determine that there is a certain mental or psychological deficit or illness that requires the use of a neuroenhancer to bring you up to par with the rest of the populace in order for them to give a recommendation or prescription for neuroenhancers. Lying to the doctor in order to get a prescription is morally wrong, unethical. Talbot’s (2009) example of Alex, a college student, shows us one of many ways possible to unethically obtain neuroenhancers. “His brother had received a diagnosis of A.D.H.D, and in his freshman year Alex obtained an Adderall prescription for himself by describing to a doctor symptoms that he knew were typical of [ADHD, attention deficit hyperactive disorder].”(Talbot, 2009, p. 700 in textbook) the way he obtained Adderall is unethical because, it bypasses the system our society has put in place to determine the right and wrong usages of drugs and thus skews the normal or average playing field which determines adequacies and inadequacies in different areas like school, work, life, or health. It also promotes falsehoods. It enables one essentially to cheat at these fields by unethically gaining an advantage.

The unethical use of neuroenhancers gives rise to the problem of cheating or gaining an unfair advantage over others. The user is no longer trying to compensate for a mental or psychological deficit or illness and is trying to get a leg up or advantage. Originally Adderall, as in Talbot’s (2009) example of Alex’s brother, was used as medication to treat attention deficits like ADD and ADHD, attention deficit disorder and attention deficit hyperactive disorder. The person ethically prescribed these medications, Alex’s brother, is unable to focus their attention. Alex who did not have the deficits like his brother chose to fake his symptoms in order to obtain the drug and thus gain the advantage over other students. The average person is able to focus their attention on the task at hand and is therefore not in need of these medications in order to perform that particular function. When people without a diagnosis are given these neuroenhancers, which does not treat an issue, but makes it easier for them to focus on their tasks, it gives them an advantage over others. Sometimes, as Talbot (2009) explains, to their detriment. Alex had trouble with speaking too quickly and thoroughly on some subjects coupled with being oddly silent on others. He told Talbot (2009) that he had a decrease in appetite while on the drug. Alex told Talbot (2009) that he spent more time researching a project than writing it which was a problem for other students on neuroenhancers. The problem with using neuroenhancers to enhance or cheat is that it puts pressure, in the competitive environment, on the average person to use them in order to survive or succeed.

The unethical use of neuroenhancers causes the acceptable or adequate norm to be skewed higher. This means that it increases the requirements needed in a field be it work school, life, or other. Dees (2007) uses the example of a model needing to use cosmetic surgery to be accepted into her field of work because of the increase in other models doing so. He goes on to tell us that if we are aware of the requirement for using neuroenhancers in a field then we should not be entering that field. This is a problem with the academic field because students do not have the choice of learning, especially grade school students. The law requires a certain number of years in school and you have to have adequate grades to pass on to the next year or graduate out of the legal educational requirements. Essentially the unethical use of neurenhancers puts peer pressure, a form of forcing someone to do something they normally would not do, on a person to use neuroenhancers to get by or survive. Dees (2007) also says that society can just create a separate category, in just about anything, for people to be able to use neuroenhancers if they choose to do so. However, he did not take into account what happens when the user stops taking it. Take a doctor, for example, who is going to do surgery on your loved one. Let us say he is working in a hospital which has told you that they employ doctors who use neuroenhancers and that this doctor is one of them. He’s used neuroenhancers from day one of his education as a doctor to just about a week ago, has no longer taken them, and has seen their effects wear off. His mental functions are not at peak performance like they were while he was taking neuroenhancers. This might increase the complications of surgery as well as increase the risk of harm to your loved one. I for one am not willing to take this risk. I want to know that the doctor working on my loved one has passed their exams on pure ability alone as well as they are not dependent on a drug to function at peak performance. Another problem is that as the number of people using neuroenhancers increases so does the average expected outcome in a field since they are either getting good grades, producing more product at work, getting more chores done around the house, or being more focused in a different area/setting. This means that with the expected outcome raised the average person must work harder to achieve the norm in these areas and is more pressured to take the easy way out like more and more of their comrades are doing just to maintain the expected outcome and prove adequate in these areas. Eventually, this peer pressure will bully or force a non- user into using neuroenhancements. It also negates a person’s right of autonomy by saying that they might have the right to do what they want while it doesn’t hurt others, but they don’t have the choice to refuse altering themselves for the benefit of others. . Increasing pressure on one to take neuroenhancers to get by in a field because others do is essentially forcing them to take neuroenhancers. If we accept this type of bullying we must also accept others such as teasing on a play-ground, forcing someone to give up their lunch money, or forcing their way to the front of the line.

As a society we condemn acts of bullying on the playground or peer pressure to do drugs. Neuroenhancers if used unethically, cause users to bully others into taking them because they raise the average expected outcome in an area like life, work, or school. Neuroenhancers can allow one to gain an unfair advantage over the average person, because they are being used to enhance or get a hand up instead of a hand out or assistance in the proper functions of the mind. Neuroenhancers usually require to recommendation of a doctor or a prescription from a doctor in order to obtain. Currently, a doctor is not going to recommend using neuroenhancers to enhance someone’s mental abilities unless there is a deficit or illness that causes the person to be below average. They use prescriptions as treatments not enhancers. Therefore neuroenhancers if used ethically, according to society’s current standards, would not give rise to cheating or gaining an advantage over the average person. It would also not give rise to coercion or forcing the average person to take these drugs unethically and thus antagonize others into doing so in order to succeed or survive in various situations such as school, life, work, or others. These are the reasons why I think neuroenhancers need to be used only if prescribed for a medical necessity.

Works Cited

Greene, S. & Lidinsky, A. (2012). From inquiry to academic writing, (2 ed.), Boston, New York: Bedford St. Martins.

Talbot, M. (2009). "From brain gain: the underground world of "neuroenhancing" drugs." The New Yorker, (from pages 699-707 in textbook above)

Dees, R. (2007).” Better brains, better selves? The ethics of neuroenhancers” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 17(4), 371-395.