Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Ethics Blogs -> Neuroethics and Law

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Ethics

: Neuroethics and Law

"Autonomy and Coercion in Academic 'Cognitive Enhancement' Using Methylphenidate: Perspectives of Key Stakeholders"

By Adam Kolber

ADVERTISEMENTS

Autonomy and Coercion in Academic ?Cognitive Enhancement? Using Methylphenidate: Perspectives of Key Stakeholders was published in the most recent issue of our partner journal, Neuroethics:

Cynthia Forlini^{1, 2} and Eric Racine^{3, 4, 5, 6}

(1)	Neuroethics Research Unit, Institut de recherches cliniques de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada

(2)	Programmes de bioéthique, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada

(3)	Director, Neuroethics Research Unit, Institut de recherches cliniques de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada

(4)	Department of Medicine and Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada

(5)	Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery & Biomedical Ethics Unit, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada

(6)	110, Avenue des Pins O., Montréal, QC, H2W 1R7, Canada

Abstract: There is mounting evidence that methylphenidate (MPH; Ritalin) is being used by healthy college students to improve concentration, alertness, and academic performance. One of the key concerns associated with such use of pharmaceuticals is the degree of freedom individuals have to engage in or abstain from cognitive enhancement (CE). From a pragmatic perspective, careful examination of the ethics of acts and contexts in which they arise includes considering coercion and social pressures to enhance cognition. We were interested in understanding how university students, parents of university students, and healthcare providers viewed autonomy and coercion in CE using MPH. We found that perspectives converged on the belief that CE is a matter of personal and individual choice. Perspectives also converged on the existence of tremendous social pressures to perform and succeed. Parents emphasized personal responsibility and accountability for CE choices, and expressed feelings of worry, sadness and fear about CE. Students emphasized the importance of personal integrity in CE, expressed tolerance for personal choices of others, and highlighted the challenge that CE poses to maintaining one?s personal integrity. Healthcare providers emphasized the health consequences of CE. These results illustrate: (1) the importance of understanding how context is viewed in relation to perspectives on autonomous choice; (2) the limitations of individualistic libertarian approaches that do not consider social context; and (3) the ethical implications of public health interventions in a value-laden debate where perspectives diverge.

Full post as published by Neuroethics and Law on December 06, 2009 (boomark / email).