Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Published 18 June 2009, doi:10.1136/bmj.b1956
Cite this as: BMJ 2009;338:b1956
Anjan Chatterjee, professor
1 Department of Neurology and Center for Cognitive Neuroscience, University of Pennsylvania, 3 West Gates, 3400 Spruce Street, Philadelphia PA 19104, USA
anjan@mail.med.upenn.edu
A drug that can improve your exam results may sound tempting, and John Harris (doi:10.1136/bmj.b1955) believes that we should embrace its possibilities. Anjan Chatterjee, however, argues that the dangers have been underplayed
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
Why would anyone object to someone choosing to be smarter, better focused, and more productive? Surely cognitive enhancement has much to offer individuals and society, and legal dispensers of methylphenidate (Ritalin) should not object. Unfortunately, the case for healthy people taking this drug is not so straightforward. Doctors routinely decide whether to intervene based on a calculation of relative risks and benefits. Here, the risks outweigh the benefits.
Some doctors might reflexively think that the answer to the target question is an obvious "no." After all, doctors are in the business of treating disease and not enhancing normal abilities. On scrutiny, this distinction proves to be unreliable, particularly when conditions lack clear categorical boundaries. For example, if individuals of short stature can be "treated" with growth hormone,1 does it matter if they are short because of a growth hormone deficiency or because of other reasons?2 Furthermore, the widespread use of
![]()
CiteULike
Complore
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Technorati What's this?