Better evidence for safety and efficacy is needed before neurologists prescribe drugs for neuroenhancement to healthy people.
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.
Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St. SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA. bboot@med.usyd.edu.au
Brendon P
BP
Boot
Brad
B
Partridge
Wayne
W
Hall
D024803:Biomedical Enhancement / Q000941:ethics / Q000379:methods / Q000592:standards; D003071:Cognition / Q000187:drug effects*; D011307:Drug Prescriptions / Q000592:standards; D006801:Humans; D009462:Neurology / Q000941:ethics*; D018697:Nootropic Agents / Q000494:pharmacology*
D018697:Nootropic Agents