Why prohibit study drugs?: On attitudes and practices concerning prohibition and coercion to use pharmaceutical cognitive enhancement

被引:5
作者
Petersen, Margit Anne [1 ]
Petersen, Thomas Sobirk [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Southern Denmark, Fac Business & Social Sci, Dept Mkt & Management, Odense, Denmark
[2] Roskilde Univ, Dept Commun & Arts, Roskilde, Denmark
关键词
Applied ethics; ethnography; prescription stimulants; cognitive enhancement; legalisation; coercion; UNIVERSITY-STUDENTS USE; PRESCRIPTION STIMULANTS; NONMEDICAL USE;
D O I
10.1080/09687637.2019.1573878
中图分类号
R194 [卫生标准、卫生检查、医药管理];
学科分类号
摘要
This article combines methodologies and explorations from the fields of anthropology and applied ethics in order to examine the ethical assumptions underlying the illegal status of pharmaceutical cognitive enhancers (PCEs) such as Adderall and other prescription stimulants often used to improve concentration, motivation, and alertness. We begin by presenting empirical data from ethnographic fieldwork conducted among university students, professors, and police officers in New York City. The data show that the students are not concerned with the illegality of PCEs, and while some students experience pressures related to performing well, they do not feel pressured into using PCEs. The empirical material furthermore reveals that the practices of the authorities in relation to PCE use are relaxed and do not always reflect the law. We then present a detailed ethical analysis of a certain type of argument in favor of the prohibition of PCEs, which has received little careful analysis in the bioethical literature. Our analysis, drawing on the philosopher Robert Nozick's specification of coercion and the sociologist N. A. Fitz's understanding of social pressure, shows that legalization of PCEs would not necessarily involve or bring about direct coercion; nor would it bring about morally problematic forms of coercion or social pressure. While the article shows that prohibition might not make a difference to uses of pharmaceuticals for enhancement, it also questions whether the gray zones between practices of the authorities and the actual law might in some ways be understood as coercive.
引用
收藏
页码:356 / 364
页数:9
相关论文
共 36 条
  • [1] Academic Performance Enhancement: A Qualitative Study of the Perceptions and Habits of Prescription Stimulant-Using College Students
    Aikins, Ross D.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF COLLEGE STUDENT DEVELOPMENT, 2011, 52 (05) : 560 - 576
  • [2] Anderson S., 2017, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017)
  • [3] [Anonymous], 1969, Philosophy, science
  • [4] Cognitive Enhancement: Methods, Ethics, Regulatory Challenges
    Bostrom, Nick
    Sandberg, Anders
    [J]. SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICS, 2009, 15 (03) : 311 - 341
  • [5] Bostrom Nick., 2007, New Waves in Applied Ethics, P120
  • [6] Cognitive enhancement and education
    Buchanan, Allen
    [J]. THEORY AND RESEARCH IN EDUCATION, 2011, 9 (02) : 145 - 162
  • [7] "Adderall is Definitely Not a Drug": Justifications for the Illegal Use of ADHD Stimulants
    DeSantis, Alan D.
    Hane, Audrey Curtis
    [J]. SUBSTANCE USE & MISUSE, 2010, 45 (1-2) : 31 - 46
  • [8] Elliot Carl., 2003, BETTER WELL AM MED M
  • [9] Neurocognitive enhancement: what can we do and what should we do?
    Farah, MJ
    Illes, J
    Cook-Deegan, R
    Gardner, H
    Kandel, E
    King, P
    Parens, E
    Sahakian, B
    Wolpe, PR
    [J]. NATURE REVIEWS NEUROSCIENCE, 2004, 5 (05) : 421 - 425
  • [10] Public Attitudes Toward Cognitive Enhancement
    Fitz, Nicholas S.
    Nadler, Roland
    Manogaran, Praveena
    Chong, Eugene W. J.
    Reiner, Peter B.
    [J]. NEUROETHICS, 2014, 7 (02) : 173 - 188