Currently, an estimated 16% of students U.S. college students take non-prescribed medications as study aids in the United States (Warren et al., 2007). Medications such as modafinil, methylphenidate and dextroamphetamine (known widely under brand names Provigil, Ritalin and Adderall) are being used off-label and recreationally for the purpose of increasing cognitive function (Goodman, 2010). These medications are typically used to treat diagnosed conditions such as narcolepsy, attention deficit hyperactive disorder and Alzheimer’s Disease. While these medications come with a list of possible side effects, these side effects fail to prevent individuals from using and abusing these drugs recreationally (Goodman, 2010). The development of a similar, more potent drug with little, to no, side effects has the potential to become a widespread product alluring not only students but individuals of all ages to use the drug solely for its cognitive enhancing benefits. As pressing as these issues are, the argument for or against the use of cognitive enhancements brings up many controversies, including several moral arguments. These arguments include: should healthy people be taking optional medications, is taking drugs for cognitive enhancement considered cheating, or the moral argument of does increasing levels of cognition beyond normal levels have the potential to disrupt what it means to be human. These questions just begin the complex debate on cognitive enhancements and just scratch the surface of the debate of what it means to be human. The idea of taking a non-prescribed medication for an undiagnosed condition is a skeptical concept in the current United States health care system. The current system rests on the advice of a licensed physician making a diagnosis and writing a prescription. Going against this advice is a foreign concept outside of over-the-counter remedies and medicinal herbs and supplements. In the case of cognitive enhancements, healthy individuals would be opting in to take medication for their own value. In the case of a hypothetical Drug A, individuals who have normal levels of cognition at baseline will be taking a drug to improve their cognitive function beyond what is found in a human. With Drugs A’s ability to improve brain power, this perfect drug has shown in clinical studies to have no major long-term side effects and very limited transient side effects. Additionally, the drug has been show to not be addictive, does not have withdrawal symptoms when stopped and does not affect sleep. Theoretically, since there are virtually no side effects, there would be very little to dissuade people from experimenting with the drug. However, if this is not the case, and the side effects had a greater potential of being harmful, then the cognitive enhancement benefits of the treatment has …show more content…
The threat of dehumanization is a growing fear due to the result of scientific advancements in the biotechnology field (The President’s Council on Bioethics, 2003). While biotechnology is a growing area of science, there have been several concerns about the difference between generating new therapies vs. creating new enhancements. Enhancements are controversial because they go beyond restoring an individual to normal function (The President’s Council on Bioethics, 2003). This makes enhancements morally problematic because it seeks a new level of perfection that is not seen naturally in humans (Sandel, 2002). Questions about what defines humanity and how an enhancement affects human dignity are the focal point in the argument on biotechnological enhancements. However as Steven Pinker argues, we should not be looking at how such advancements affect human dignity, but instead how they affect respect for persons (2008). Using this perspective, it allows us to not sensationalize technology and be more excepting towards new technology that might benefit human