Abstract
In this paper we question the guidance offered to neurologists by the Ethics, Law and Humanities Committee of the American Academy of Neurology (Larriviere, Williams, Rizzo & Bonnie, 2009) on how to respond to requests for “neuroenhancement”: the use of pharmaceuticals to enhance cognitive function in cognitively normal people. The guidance assumes that the benefits of using neuroenhancers will prove to outweigh the risks in the absence of any evidence that this is the case. However, the principle of nonmaleficence dictates that the use of these drugs by healthy people should not be condoned before reliable evidence for their short and long term safety and efficacy is at hand. The proposed ethical framework for neuroenhancement prescribing also neglects the broader social implications of condoning such practices. The adoption of these guidelines by neurologists could have adverse social and medical effects that need to be more carefully considered.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
