Ethics

?Cosmetic Neurology? and the Moral Complicity Argument

By Adam Kolber

?Cosmetic Neurology? and the Moral Complicity Argument has been published in the most recent issue of our partner journal, Neuroethics:

A. Ravelingien¹ , J. Braeckman¹, L. Crevits², D. De Ridder³ and E. Mortier⁴

Abstract: Over the past decades, mood enhancement effects of various drugs and neuromodulation technologies have been proclaimed. If one day highly effective methods for significantly altering and elevating one?s mood are available, it is conceivable that the demand for them will be considerable. One urgent concern will then be what role physicians should play in providing such services. The concern can be extended from literature on controversial demands for aesthetic surgery. According to Margaret Little, physicians should be aware that certain aesthetic enhancement requests reflect immoral social norms and ideals. By granting such requests, she argues, doctors render themselves complicit to a collective ?evil?. In this paper, we wish to question the extent to which physicians, psychiatrists and/or neurosurgeons should play a role as ?moral gatekeepers? in dealing with suspect demands and norms underlying potential desires to alter one?s mood or character. We investigate and discuss the nature and limits of physician responsibilities in reference to various hypothetical and intuitively problematic mood enhancement requests.

Full post as published by Neuroethics and Law on December 03, 2009 (boomark / email).