Pediatric neuroenhancement Ethical, legal, social, and neurodevelopmental implications

From the Departments of Pediatrics and Neurology (W.D.G., G.M.), Yale University, New Haven, CT
Neurology (Impact Factor: 8.3). 03/2013; 80(13). DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e318289703b
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The use of prescription medication to augment cognitive or affective function in healthy persons-or neuroenhancement-is increasing in adult and pediatric populations. In children and adolescents, neuroenhancement appears to be increasing in parallel to the rising rates of attention-deficit disorder diagnoses and stimulant medication prescriptions, and the opportunities for medication diversion. Pediatric neuroenhancement remains a particularly unsettled and value-laden practice, often without appropriate goals or justification. Pediatric neuroenhancement presents its own ethical, social, legal, and developmental issues, including the fiduciary responsibility of physicians caring for children, the special integrity of the doctor-child-parent relationship, the vulnerability of children to various forms of coercion, distributive justice in school settings, and the moral obligation of physicians to prevent misuse of medication. Neurodevelopmental issues include the importance of evolving personal authenticity during childhood and adolescence, the emergence of individual decision-making capacities, and the process of developing autonomy. This Ethics, Law, and Humanities Committee position paper, endorsed by the American Academy of Neurology, Child Neurology Society, and American Neurological Association, focuses on various implications of pediatric neuroenhancement and outlines discussion points in responding to neuroenhancement requests from parents or adolescents. Based on currently available data and the balance of ethics issues reviewed in this position paper, neuroenhancement in legally and developmentally nonautonomous children and adolescents without a diagnosis of a neurologic disorder is not justifiable. In nearly autonomous adolescents, the fiduciary obligation of the physician may be weaker, but the prescription of neuroenhancements is inadvisable because of numerous social, developmental, and professional integrity issues.

Download full-text


Available from: William D Graf, Jun 09, 2015
  • Source
    • "Graf and colleagues stated that prescribing CE drugs to children and adolescents without a neurological diagnosis is not justifiable. In “nearly autonomous adolescents” this dogma should be weaker, but prescribing CE drugs should be not advisable “because of numerous social, developmental, and professional integrity issues” [25]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Primary care physicians are gate keepers to the medical system having a key role in giving information and prescribing drugs to their patients. In this respect they are involved in claims of patients/ clients for pharmacological Cognitive Enhancement (CE). Therefore, we studied the knowledge of primary care physicians about CE and their attitudes toward prescribing CE drugs to healthy subjects. A self-report paper-and-pencil questionnaire and case vignettes describing a hypothetical CE drug were sent out to all 2,753 registered primary care physicians in Rhineland Palatine, Germany. 832, i.e. 30.2% filled in the questionnaire anonymously. 96.0% of all participating physicians had already heard about CE. However, only 5.3% stated to be very familiar with this subject and 43.5% judged themselves as being not familiar with CE. 7.0% had been asked by their clients to prescribe a drug for CE during the last week, 19.0% during the last month, and 40.8% during the last year. The comfort level to prescribe CE drugs was very low and significantly lower than to prescribe sildenafil (Viagra(R)). Comfort level was mainly affected by the age of the client asking for prescription of CE drugs, followed by the availability of non-pharmacological alternatives, fear of misuse of the prescribed drug by the client and the missing indication of prescribing a drug. Although a relatively high proportion of primary care physicians have been asked by their clients to prescribe CE drugs, only a small proportion are well informed about the possibilities of CE. Since physicians are gate keepers to the medical system and have a key role regarding a drugs' prescription, objective information should be made available to physicians about biological, ethical and social consequences of CE use.
    BMC Family Practice 01/2014; 15(1):3. DOI:10.1186/1471-2296-15-3 · 1.74 Impact Factor
  • 05/2013; 6. DOI:10.1016/j.dcn.2013.05.002
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: I argue that young patients should be able to access neuroenhancing drugs without a diagnosis of ADHD. The current framework of consent for pediatric patients can be adapted to accommodate neuroenhancement. After a brief overview of pediatric neuroenhancement, I develop three arguments in favor of greater acceptance of neuroenhancement for young patients. First, ADHD is not relevantly different from other disadvantages that could be treated with stimulant medication. Second, establishing a legitimate framework for pediatric neuroenhancement would mitigate the bad effects of diversion and improve research on neuroenhancement and ADHD. Third, some pediatric patients have rights to access neuroenhancements. I then consider several objections to pediatric neuroenhancement. I address concerns about addiction, advertising, authentic development, the parent-child relationship and equal opportunity and conclude that these concerns may inform a framework for prescribing neuroenhancement but they do not justify limits on prescribing.
    HEC Forum 08/2013; DOI:10.1007/s10730-013-9222-4
Show more