Have We Become Too Dependent On Our Medicine Cabinet?
Christian Science Monitor is asking an important question: "Have we become too dependent on our medicine cabinet?" Medical ethicists, physicians, and even patients and their advocates who are growing increasingly concerned about the reliance that Americans place upon their pharmaceuticals to make them well. My questions is: "What's the real worry?"
Debates about enhancement in genetics and sports and other fields have abounded for years, but when the enhancements are as convenient as popping one's morning pills, the opportunity to better one's self almost seems too easy. And with dramatic effects ranging from improved cognition and memory to enhancing sexual performance, it seems almost too good to pass up. However, when the pills we are popping dramatically effect our brains, deeper moral questions arise.
But for all the hoopla about should otherwise healthy adults or teenagers take brain enhancing drugs, it would seem to come down to a very straightforward issue: given the fast-paced, completely distracted, Twitter-filled, Facebook-crazed, Blackberry, iPhone, Cloud Computing world in which we live, doesn't it only make sense that we might need a little cognitive assistance to keep all of these widely disparate, but crucial data streams straight in our heads? Why else, for example would 10% of college students report taking cognitive enhancing drugs? They arguably are the most "hooked in" of all in terms of technology, and once "real life" hits them--some cognitive enhancement is certainly to be on the menu.
Critics describe a "slide toward a more drugged society" where people are "more dependent on the pill bottle". As opposed to what? A society with millions of neurologically fried, cognitively lagging individuals unable to keep up with the rapid advances in technology and information flowing at them daily, and incapable of dealing with the demands of an increasingly competitive marketplace in terms of employment and more hardly seems like a better option. (Yes, there are justice concerns associated with this view, but that is true for access to any new therapy or enhancement or technology in medicine.)
Given the choice, and given where society is headed and that it shows no signs of slowing or reversing, the morally responsible stance to take is actually to promote the use of cognitively enhancing drugs for a society that is outpacing what our brains can handle. If the only option is to fall behind or rely upon the medicine cabinet, I vote for cracking open a pill bottle.
Summer Johnson, PhD
contribute a comment
Your contributions to the conversation are very much appreciated. We do have a few simple guidelines, though. Be civil. Stay on topic. We reserve the right to remove comments that violate the aforementioned guidelines. One more thing: comments are moderated, so it may take a little while for your comment to be posted. Thanks.
comments
I couldn't agree more. If enhancement is really what we're worried about, then there are a lot of other widespread practices that are problematic. How many people drink coffee to get them going in the morning or get them through the day? Add in tea and soft drinks and about 80% of Americans use caffeine to help them do what they need to do. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/14/sunday/main529388.shtml
What about an alcoholic drink at the end of a tough day (in moderation I mean)? Or a cigarette, cigar, or pipe for a stressful situation? The point is there are numerous ways we use chemicals on a daily basis to get through the day, but because it's not in a pill form it's acceptable. Honestly, what difference is there between popping caffeine pills and a few cups of coffee? Granted it's easier to OD with pills, but we've all seen that person who's had one too many espressos. But if they're used in moderation I don't really see what the big deal is.
- by jrmbg on May 20, 2009 at 11:20 PM | link
Whoa there. Maybe, if the constant streaming, twitteding, televisophononetting world requires chemicals to keep up, we should consider changing the constant "on" character of life, socially or individually. Maybe we can't think as well when were overwhelmed by distractions.
- by Susan Goold on May 20, 2009 at 11:45 PM | link
Susan, thank you for your comment. Unfortunately, I see no signs that society is going to shake off its newest forms of social connection and information sharing and revert back to another time when people's Blackberries weren't attached to their ears or thumbs 24 hours a day. Given that premise, if the necessary step for society is to adopt medical technologies and pharmaceuticals that allow them to cope with this change in society, then I see no moral objection to it. If we cannot stop technological progress (which we cannot) which changes our society dramatically, the individuals in that society must change to keep up along with it.
- by Summer Johnson on May 21, 2009 at 12:34 PM | link
I don't use these cognitive enhancers because 1) I don't think they work and, 2) I question their long term effects on my health. I do take supplements that offer the possibility of life extension - Resveratrol, CoQ-10, ALA, and Carnosine. I also think the cognitive enhancers that are coming in the next 10 years or so will be more effective of boosting an IQ 90 person to, say, 110, than it will boost an IQ 130 person to 160.
I also argue that these cognitive enhancers are not necessary for modern business life. I don't use them and I'm as much of a "crackberry" plug in guy as much as anyone else.
- by kurt9 on May 26, 2009 at 5:31 PM | link