Enhancing the disadvantaged
by Xavier Symons | 4 Jun 2016 |
A new edition of the American Journal of Bioethics explores a unique aspect of enhancement technologies – the possibility of remedying social disadvantage through cognitive enhancement.
Social disadvantage is taken by many to be structural and very difficult to remedy. The AJOB edition takes this as a given, and considers enhancement as an alternative strategy.
In a target article for the edition, University of Texas at Houston bioethicist Keisha Shantel Ray argues that the use of cognitive stimulants such as Adderall and Ritalin is a morally acceptable way to improve the academic performance of disadvantaged children and, indirectly, remedy social inequality.
“What morally matters when we are disadvantaged through luck, or through no choice of our own, is how disadvantages affect access to resources and how we address these disadvantages. Stimulants could be one way to address these disadvantages by giving students the tools to function within their disadvantaged setting. Some may be unwilling to use stimulants for these purposes…however, I argue that we have to be willing to consider stimulants as an option because we are not correcting students’ disadvantages in other, more traditional ways.”Ray acknowledges the common argument that enhancements are a kind of superficial solution for a deeper problem; but she believes a pragmatic approach may be necessary.
“Stimulants may be a better practical and just solution in our current unjust situation”.Sebastian Sattler (a sociologist from the University of Cologne) and Ilina Singh (a neuroscientist from Oxford) are sceptical of Ray’s proposal, and note that there have been no clinical trials to test the enhancement potentials of prescription stimulants in healthy children. (Sattler also expressed his concerns in an AJOB blog post).
Anthropologists Fred B. Ketchum (University of Chicago) and Psychiatrist Dimitris Repantis (Charite – University Hospital Berlin) argue that Ray’s approach is a subtle way of medicalizing social disadvantage:
“We contend that Ray’s argument relies on an untenable distinction between “social” and “biological” pathologies. Social scientists and philosopher of medicine have long demonstrated that biological norms are not independent of social norms, but always intertwined with them.”
The death of Muhammed Ali at the age of 74 is reminder of the uneasy ethical status of boxing. Only in boxing is the brain the target. Ali’s Parkinson’s disease was probably a result of punishing blows to the head over the course of his career. Gloves probably make the problem worse, as they increase the weight and the force of impact. Headgear may not protect boxers from rotational acceleration.
John Hardy, a neuroscientist at University College London, wrote a couple years ago: “nothing can be more killing of joy than personality changes, violence, substance abuse and dementia. I also think it is demeaning as a society for people to get pleasure out of watching others fight and that we should consign this public spectacle, as we have done public executions, to the dustbin of history.”
What do you think? Should professional boxing be banned? It seems hard to justify a sport which, in the words of Joe Frazier, who beat Ali in the brutal “fight of the century” in 1971, “boxing is the only sport you can get your brain shook, your money took and your name in the undertaker book.”
Michael Cook
Editor
BioEdge
This week in BioEdge | |
by Michael Cook | Jun 04, 2016
Derides it as "Santa Claus in the fertility clinic"by Xavier Symons | Jun 04, 2016
Scores of older couples in China are turning to IVF to have a second child.by Xavier Symons | Jun 04, 2016
IVF companies in Australia have come under fire following a Four Corners investigation.by Michael Cook | Jun 04, 2016
A great resource for accurate critiquesby Michael Cook | Jun 04, 2016
Yes, say German and Dutch bioethicists; they don't know their own mindby Xavier Symons | Jun 04, 2016
Rom-com suggests that they are better off dead.by Xavier Symons | Jun 04, 2016
Wife's lawyers call the decision “extraordinary and unprecedented”by Xavier Symons | Jun 04, 2016
A new edition of the American Journal of Bioethics explores the possibility of remedying social disadvantage through cognitive enhancement.BioEdge
Suite 12A, Level 2 | 5 George St | North Strathfield NSW 2137 | Australia
Phone: +61 2 8005 8605
Mobile: 0422-691-615
Email: michael@bioedge.org
New Media Foundation | Level 2, 5 George St | North Strathfield NSW 2137 | AUSTRALIA | +61 2 8005 8605
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario