Explore the vast range of titles available.

Enhancing cognitive performance with substances--especially prescription drugs--is a fiercely debated topic among scholars and in the media. The empirical basis for these discussions is limited, given that the actual nature of factors that influence the acceptability of and willingness to use cognitive enhancement substances remains unclear. In an online factorial survey, contextual and substance-specific characteristics of substances that improve academic performance were varied experimentally and presented to respondents. Students in four German universities rated their willingness to use and moral acceptance of different substances for cognitive enhancement. We found that the overall willingness to use performance enhancing substances is low. Most respondents considered the use of these substances as morally unacceptable. Situational influences such as peer pressure, policies concerning substance use, relative performance level of peers, but also characteristics of the substance, such as perceptions of substance safety, shape the willingness and acceptability of using a substance to enhance academic performance. Among the findings is evidence of a contagion effect meaning that the willingness was higher when the respondents have more CE drug users in their social network. We also found deterrence effects from strong side effects of using the substance, as well as from policy regulations and sanctions. Regulations might activate social norms against usage and sanctions can be seen as costly to users. Moreover, enhancement substances seem to be most tempting to low performers to catch up with others compared to high performers. By identifying contextual factors and substance characteristics influencing the willingness and acceptability of cognitive enhancers, policy approaches could consider these insights to better manage the use of such substances.

Background Some university students consume pharmaceutical stimulants without a medical prescription with the goal of improving their academic performance. The prevalence of this practice has been well documented in the US, but less so in other countries. The potential harms of using prescription stimulants require a better understanding of the prevalence of this practice within Australian universities. Methods An internet survey of 1136 Australian students was conducted in 2015 in three large Australian universities. Students were asked about their personal use of prescription stimulants, attitudes and experiences with prescription stimulants. They were also asked about their use of caffeine, energy drinks and illicit drugs to enhance their academic performance. Results Lifetime self-reported use of stimulant medication to improve academic performance was 6.5, and 4.4% in the past year. Students were far more likely to report using coffee and energy drinks (41.4 and 23.6% respectively, lifetime use) than prescription stimulants to help them study and complete university assessments. Non-medical use of prescription stimulants was strongly associated with a history of illicit drug use. Conclusion The prevalence of nonmedical prescription stimulant use to improve academic performance is low among university students in Australia, especially when compared with their use of coffee and energy drinks.

Background Socio-cultural perceptions surrounding death have profoundly changed since the 1950s with development of modern intensive care and progress in solid organ transplantation. Despite broad support for organ transplantation, many fundamental concepts and practices including brain death, organ donation after circulatory death, and some antemortem interventions to prepare for transplantation continue to be challenged. Attitudes toward the ethical issues surrounding death and organ donation may influence support for and participation in organ donation but differences between and among diverse populations have not been studied. Objectives In order to clarify attitudes toward brain death, organ donation after circulatory death and antemortem interventions in the context of organ donation, we conducted a scoping review of international English-language quantitative surveys in various populations. Study appraisal A search of literature up to October 2020 was performed, using multiple databases. After screening, 45 studies were found to meet pre-specified inclusion criteria. Results 32 studies examined attitudes to brain death, predominantly in healthcare professionals. In most, around 75% of respondents accepted brain death as equivalent to death of the person. Less common perspectives included equating death with irreversible coma and willingness to undertake organ donation even if it caused death. 14 studies examined attitudes to organ donation following circulatory death. Around half of respondents in most studies accepted that death could be confidently diagnosed after only 5 min of cardiorespiratory arrest. The predominant reason was lack of confidence in doctors or diagnostic procedures. Only 6 studies examined attitudes towards antemortem interventions in prospective organ donors. Most respondents supported minimally invasive procedures and only where specific consent was obtained. Conclusions Our review suggests a considerable proportion of people, including healthcare professionals, have doubts about the medical and ethical validity of modern determinations of death. The prognosis of brain injury was a more common concern in the context of organ donation decision-making than certainty of death.

Background There is substantial evidence that methylphenidate (MPH; Ritalin), is being used by healthy university students for non-medical motives such as the improvement of concentration, alertness, and academic performance. The scope and potential consequences of the non-medical use of MPH upon healthcare and society bring about many points of view. Methods To gain insight into key ethical and social issues on the non-medical use of MPH, we examined discourses in the print media, bioethics literature, and public health literature. Results Our study identified three diverging paradigms with varying perspectives on the nature of performance enhancement. The beneficial effects of MPH on normal cognition were generally portrayed enthusiastically in the print media and bioethics discourses but supported by scant information on associated risks. Overall, we found a variety of perspectives regarding ethical, legal and social issues related to the non-medical use of MPH for performance enhancement and its impact upon social practices and institutions. The exception to this was public health discourse which took a strong stance against the non-medical use of MPH typically viewed as a form of prescription abuse or misuse. Wide-ranging recommendations for prevention of further non-medical use of MPH included legislation and increased public education. Conclusion Some positive portrayals of the non-medical use of MPH for performance enhancement in the print media and bioethics discourses could entice further uses. Medicine and society need to prepare for more prevalent non-medical uses of neuropharmaceuticals by fostering better informed public debates.

Background Case‐finding for dementia is practised by general practitioners (GPs) in Australia but without an awareness of community preferences. We explored the values and preferences of informed community members around case‐finding for dementia in Australian general practice. Design, setting and participants A before and after, mixed‐methods study in Gold Coast, Australia, with ten community members aged 50‐70. Intervention A 2‐day citizen/community jury. Participants were informed by experts about dementia, the potential harms and benefits of case‐finding, and ethical considerations. Primary and secondary outcomes We asked participants, “Should the health system encourage GPs to practice ‘case‐finding’ of dementia in people older than 50?” Case‐finding was defined as a GP initiating testing for dementia when the patient is unaware of symptoms. We also assessed changes in participant comprehension/knowledge, attitudes towards dementia and participants’ own intentions to undergo case‐finding for dementia if it were suggested. Results Participants voted unanimously against case‐finding for dementia, citing a lack of effective treatments, potential for harm to patients and potential financial incentives. However, they recognized that case‐finding was currently practised by Australian GPs and recommended specific changes to the guidelines. Participants increased their comprehension/knowledge of dementia, their attitude towards case‐finding became less positive, and their intentions to be tested themselves decreased. Conclusion Once informed, community jury participants did not agree case‐finding for dementia should be conducted by GPs. Yet their personal intentions to accept case‐finding varied. If case‐finding for dementia is recommended in the guidelines, then shared decision making is essential.

In the last decade, an increasing number of studies have suggested that transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) may enhance brain function in healthy individuals and ameliorate cognitive and other symptoms in patients suffering from various medical conditions. This, along with its presumed safety, simplicity and affordability, has generated great enthusiasm amongst researchers, clinicians, patient populations and the public (including a growing “do-it-yourself” community). However, discussion about the effectiveness and ethics of tDCS thus far has been confined to small groups of tDCS researchers and bioethicists. We conducted an international online survey targeting the opinions of researchers using tDCS who were asked to rate the technique’s efficacy in different contexts. We also surveyed opinions about ethical concerns, self-enhancement and public availability. 265 complete responses were received and analyzed statistically and thematically. Our results emphasize the potential uses of tDCS in clinical and research contexts, but also highlight a number of emerging methodological and safety concerns, ethical challenges and the need for improved communication between researchers and bioethicists with regard to regulation of the device. Neither the media reputation of tDCS as a “miracle device” nor concerns expressed in recent neuroethical publications were entirely borne out in expert opinion.

There is mounting evidence that methylphenidate (MPH; Ritalin) is being used by healthy college students to improve concentration, alertness, and academic performance. One of the key concerns associated with such use of pharmaceuticals is the degree of freedom individuals have to engage in or abstain from cognitive enhancement (CE). From a pragmatic perspective, careful examination of the ethics of acts and contexts in which they arise includes considering coercion and social pressures to enhance cognition. We were interested in understanding how university students, parents of university students, and healthcare providers viewed autonomy and coercion in CE using MPH. We found that perspectives converged on the belief that CE is a matter of personal and individual choice. Perspectives also converged on the existence of tremendous social pressures to perform and succeed. Parents emphasized personal responsibility and accountability for CE choices, and expressed feelings of worry, sadness and fear about CE. Students emphasized the importance of personal integrity in CE, expressed tolerance for personal choices of others, and highlighted the challenge that CE poses to maintaining one’s personal integrity. Healthcare providers emphasized the health consequences of CE. These results illustrate: (1) the importance of understanding how context is viewed in relation to perspectives on autonomous choice; (2) the limitations of individualistic libertarian approaches that do not consider social context; and (3) the ethical implications of public health interventions in a value-laden debate where perspectives diverge.

Various studies have reported that pre- scription stimulants (e.g., methyl- phenidate, dextroamphetamine mixed salts) and other neuropharmaceuticals (e.g., modafinil) are used by some healthy individuals without diagnosed attention deficit disorder to enhance concentration, memory, alertness and mood, a phenomenon often described as \"cog- nitive enhancement\" or \"neuroenhancement.\"12 Recently the term cognitive enhancement has captured the effort to deliberately augment the performance of healthy individuals and has, therefore, been criticized for the implicit assumption that these agents will be beneficial for healthy people. In contrast, the terms \"non- medical use\" and \"prescription drug abuse\" are used in public health literature.3 The prevalence of cognitive enhancer use by students on uni- versity campuses ranges from 1% to 11%.34 This practice raises important ethical and so- cietal questions concerning the freedom of peo- ple to engage in cognitive enhancement and whether this is fair practice in academic and professional environments.5 Box 1 presents landmarks in the debate surrounding the ethics of cognitive enhancement.1311 The American Academy of Neurology was the first professional association to issue spe- cific guidance for physicians on the subject of cognitive enhancement, which has served as a backdrop for further discussion of physician responses and obligations. The academy's posi- tion values the physician-patient relationship as the appropriate locus for addressing and responding to such requests. The academy bases its answers to the initial question \"Can physicians prescribe medications for cognitive enhancement?\" on the moral acceptability of cognitive enhancement within the existing legal and medical frameworks. However, another question is \"Should physicians prescribe cogni- tive enhancers to healthy individuals?\" This question asks whether cognitive enhancement is a morally praiseworthy (not solely acceptable) practice for physicians and summons physi- cians' broader obligations and responsibilities to their profession and the community.17 It is unclear at this point if physicians are willing to integrate cognitive enhancement into their clinical practice and if they think it respects their professional integrity. It has been suggested that cognitive enhancement is within the \"domain of other socially useful practices that are acceptable to the profession and society.\"10 However, a low response rate to a survey of general practitioners on this topic has led to the hypothesis that \"the issues were too foreign to their daily experiences and not perceived as clinically relevant.\"27 In addition, Hotze and colleagues reported that physicians showed \"considerable ambivalence around the issue of enhancement\" when ques- tioned about their willingness to prescribe a hypothetical enhancement intervention.16 In half of the situations, physicians responded that they might prescribe the intervention but with reser- vations. Likewise, Banjo and colleagues29 pre- sented results from a survey of 212 physicians showing that willingness to prescribe existing medications (e.g., methylphenidate, modafinil) for the potential use of enhancement was low (2- 3 on a 7-point Likert scale). These findings sug- gest a less favourable involvement of physicians in cognitive enhancement than was believed.

The prospects of enhancing cognitive or motor functions using neuroscience in otherwise healthy individuals has attracted considerable attention and interest in neuroethics (Farah et al., Nature Reviews Neuroscience 5:421–425, 2004 ; Glannon Journal of Medical Ethics 32:74–78, 2006 ). The use of stimulants is one of the areas which has propelled the discussion on the potential for neuroscience to yield cognition-enhancing products. However, we have found in our review of the literature that the paradigms used to discuss the non-medical use of stimulant drugs prescribed for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) vary considerably. In this brief communication, we identify three common paradigms—prescription drug abuse, cognitive enhancement, and lifestyle use of pharmaceuticals—and briefly highlight how divergences between paradigms create important “ethics blind spots”.

In the debate on the ethics of the non-medical use of pharmaceuticals for cognitive performance enhancement in healthy individuals there is a clear division between those who view “cognitive enhancement” as ethically unproblematic and those who see such practices as fraught with ethical problems. Yet another, more subtle issue, relates to the relevance and quality of the contribution of scholarly bioethics to this debate. More specifically, how have various forms of speculation, anticipatory ethics, and methods to predict scientific trends and societal responses augmented or diminished this contribution? In this paper, we use the discussion of the ethics of cognitive enhancement to explore the positive and negative contribution of speculation in bioethics scholarship. First, we review and discuss how speculation has relied on different sets of assumptions regarding the non-medical use of stimulants, namely: (1) terminology and framing; (2) scientific aspects such as efficacy and safety; (3) estimates of prevalence and consequent normalization; and (4) the need for normative reflection and regulatory guidelines. Second, three methodological guideposts are proposed to alleviate some of the pitfalls of speculation: (1) acknowledge assumptions more explicitly and identify the value attributed to assumptions; (2) validate assumptions with interdisciplinary literature; and (3) adopt a broad perspective to promote more comprehensive reflection. We conclude that, through the examination of the controversy about cognitive enhancement, we can employ these methodological guideposts to enhance the value of contributions from bioethics and minimize potential epistemic and practical pitfalls in this case and perhaps in other areas of bioethical debate.