Cognitive Enhancement Drug A Case Study

As a bioethicist in a hospital, it would my job to evaluate this controversial issue and suggest an action to take if such a situation presents itself to hospital administrators. When considering the case of cognitive enhancements being used by emergency room (ER) physicians, I would reflect on the arguments for and against cognitive enhancements in general. I would then reflect on how these arguments impact the specific case at hand. The profession of a physician, more specifically and ER physician, is overseen by three organizations that are authorized to grant board-certified physicians in emergency medicine: the American Board of Emergency Medicine, the American Osteopathic Board of Emergency medicine and the Board Certification in Emergency …show more content…
The main argument in favor of mandating cognitive enhancements in the case of the cognitive enhancement Drug A would be the drugs ability to reduce medical errors by 20% and reduce the death rate by 5%. Any utilitarian argument would state that the value of saving a life is more important than any other moral argument against the use of the drug. However, the utilitarian argument fails to consider the consequences of ignoring the moral arguments, which a deontological view would approach when evaluating the rightness and wrongness of using such a drug. Such a recommendation while appeasing to the utilitarian good of the drug, causing the most people to stay alive and limiting the amount of mistakes, it goes against several present moral arguments. Mandating the drug, while having staff and patients against the use of the drug could possibly alienate the physicians or patients. Since this a highly controversial topic, such a bold statement could be too bold in the current climate of the issue. Thus, I would not recommend this …show more content…
This is also a “safe” recommendation, as it does not disclose an official position on if the hospital is for or against the use of cognitive enhancements. Instead, it puts the decision on the physician and ultimately the user of the drug. While it could be argued that this still creates an uneven playing field, at least it does not ask physicians to go against their own moral beliefs. In addition, a positive side of this statement is that it acknowledges that this issue is a controversial topic and needs to be discussed and acknowledged. As a result from this statement, I hope that there is increased dialogue and an eventual consensus can be reached. As a result I would recommend this action to be taken regarding the issue of drug A. While this is not the perfect solution, it mitigates many of the more controversial problems that can be associated with making a stronger stance on a currently unsettled