Aspects such as beneficence, utilitarianism, and duty ethics come to mind when arguing neuroenhancement technology. The human race has been working for many years in an effort to try and maintain progression in the fields of science and technology. The question is, when is science interfering with the well being of our society?
Terms
Duty Ethics- one's duty or how one should morally act.
In regards to neuroenhancement technology, some argue that it is a duty ethic because it provides a better life for those in need, as well as creating a safer and more advanced society. While this may be true, Kant(founder of the term "duty ethics") explains that only rules that can be used as universal laws should be used to regulate society. He also explains that duty ethics only contributes to the dignity of human beings. Ultimately, neuroenhancements test both theories in the sense that they have the capabilities to take away human dignity, by using drugs and technology to replace the value of the normal human anatomy.
Utilitarianism-the practice of creating the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people.
Utilitarianism is ultimately used to create peace within a society. Certain neuroenhancement technologies may help increase the well-being of a society, but issues such as autonomy, social class, and money arise when speaking about such technology.
Beneficence-an ethical obligation to pursue the welfare of the patient before any other aspect
Ethical issues arise when speaking about a patient's beneficence because what one person thinks of a person's welfare, another may find completely immoral. Neuroenhancement technology tests the theory of beneficence because ultimately, it is up to the patient and provider to determine what is the best outcome for the patient and issue at hand.
Ethical Issues
Above Average Brain Function
While some neuroenhancement technologies are considered normalizers, the such advancement could potentially create unfair advantages to human capabilities. Psychological drugs, and other neuroenhancments such as Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation have the ability to stimulate and alter normal mind states, which can ultimately put the average mind in an above average state. It is unclear as to what limits there are to such technology and the brain itself. While some argue that this is a great accomplishment for science, technology, and medicine, others feel controversial that these advancements can give an unfair advantage to those who can afford such treatment. In all actuality, if this is the case, neuroenhancement technology would not be considered a utilitarian act.
Court Ordered CNS Intervention
Court ordered CNS intervention is used to rehabilitate patients and control outrageous behaviors. This type of neuroenhancement is mainly used to calm patients with drugs and different central nervous system manipulation. It is best used to eliminate impulsive acts, aggression, and violence. Some judges mandate this technology as part of a defendants sentence if mental illness is a justifiable cause for the negative acts implemented against the law. While this may ultimately help society and the patient alike by eliminating violence, some feel that it is not the right of a human to manipulate any body part, regardless of the reason. Some also argue that court ordered CNS intervention takes away an individuals freedom. By altering the central nervous system, patients lose their autonomy and right to speak for themselves. Ultimately, CNS intervention is a form of utilitarianism if used appropriately. Not only is the patient benefiting, but it also allows for a better society.
Brain Reading
While the term brain reading sounds a bit fictional, diagnostic imaging is now allowing medical providers to pre-determine certain diseases just by looking at a photo. Physicians and radiologists are now able to pre-determine if patients have/will have ADHD, Alzheimer's Disease, and even certain drug addictions based on the radiologic technology. While this technology is making strides in the medical field, the morality of it is being questioned. By "pre-determining" a patient's illness based off of imaging, that can ultimately subject the patient to unfair disadvantages in life. It can lead to unnecessary treatment, the patient's loss of privacy, and skewed judgments made on the patient.
Money
Such medical interventions and enhancements cost a lot of money, creating an unfair advantage to the upper class society. Those who can afford neuroenhancements will be able to receive the benefits, while others fall behind on the society pyramid. Also, the amount of money being spent on such research is abundant. Some argue that government funding is being spent frivolously and it could be going to better or more necessary causes.
References
Farah, M. (2002). Emerging ethical issues in neuroscience. Retrieved November 23, 2014 from
http://archlab.gmu.edu/people/rparasur/Documents/FarahEthics.pdf
Garret, J. (2006). Kant’s duty ethics. Retrieved October 1, 2014 from
http://people.wku.edu/jan.garrett/ethics/kant.htm
Naveed, F. (2013). Need and importance of code of ethics. Retrieved November 23,2014 from
http://mass.pakgalaxy.com/need-and-importance-of-code-of-ethics-in-public-relations.html