Thought Experiments in Cosmetic Pharmacology
In order to draw attention to some ethical concepts regarding cosmetic pharmacology, here are a couple thought experiments regarding hypothetical drugs and philosophical issues they bring up. Consider the following drugs while asking yourself the following questions: Should any of the above drugs be able to be acquired by anyone over the counter? With a prescription? Should any of them never be used by anyone?
1) A drug that makes people extremely productive, happy, not "emotionally-flattened" without any side effects, except for once every two years at an unexpected time, send user into a fit of violent rage. It cures a subset of dementias completely.
2) Consider a drug that completely suppresses sexual desire without any side effects, with long-term safety established.
3) Consider a drug that completely flattens all emotions with no side effects and established long-term safety.
The first case I think brings up the issue of giving someone a drug that could, due specifically to the drugs action, endanger the health and well-being of others in society. SSRIs have been accused of this in the past due to such things as association with school shootings and violent criminal acts. Even if a drug has a massive benefit, with such great risks should it be completely suppressed? Should the drug be allowed to circulate but only under intense supervision such that the negative effects could be negated? Could such purported violence be curbed? Where do you draw the line with regard to negative side effects? If it simply makes people verbally aggressive, would it be an infringment upon their rights to refuse them its other benefits? What if it cures the dementia but makes them not want to integrate into society or work at all? Would you let the individual decide how much a drug alters their personality by simply drawing the line at risk of violence toward others? Should the individual, medical establishment, or government have the last say in the usage of such a drug or similar drugs that lie across the spectrum of possessing side effects? I'd argue that unless a drug has a proven risk of making an individual significantly more of a direct risk to society or themselves (direct and significant here indicating interpersonal violence or suicidal tendencies), then the individual should ultimately have the decision of whether to use the drug. A possible counter-example to this argument would be: what about heroin addicts? Can a caveat be defined where disallow blatantly self-destructive tendencies without infringing upon individual rights? This seems to tap into existing drug debates involving the DEA/FDA with regard to the use of such recreational drugs as marijuana. More on these ideas later.... (in subsequent posts)
The latter two examples bring up the idea that was is natural is good and what is unnatural is necessarily bad. Much debate against emerging technologies has revolved around the technologies being "unnatural" and that their use is therefore unethical. Possibly some of the most "unnatural" side effects of drugs could be an abolishment of sexual drive or flattening of emotions, two purported side effects of SSRIs. Personally, I see these concerns as asinine knee-jerk reactions, but they seem deep seated in the contemporary status quo. Traditional counter-responses to the "unnatural is bad" mentality include the fact that pacemakers, much of contemporary medicine, antibiotics, contraception, are all unnatural. Any form of technology is likewise as unnatural from telephones to calculators, from preachers via tv to orbital satellites. What cosmetic pharmacology brings to the table as new in this regard revolves around the fact that it could much more blatantly alter who we are. I believe that the modulation of the substrate of cognition and the direct alteration of personality coming into the purvey of scientific analysis constitutes a significant paradigm shift.
How should all these concerns guide drug development and evaluation of purpoted cosmetic pharmaceutics?
Apologies for the stream of consciousness writing style, trying to get as many ideas on the table as possible for greater cohesion on this site later on.... More soon.
1) A drug that makes people extremely productive, happy, not "emotionally-flattened" without any side effects, except for once every two years at an unexpected time, send user into a fit of violent rage. It cures a subset of dementias completely.
2) Consider a drug that completely suppresses sexual desire without any side effects, with long-term safety established.
3) Consider a drug that completely flattens all emotions with no side effects and established long-term safety.
The first case I think brings up the issue of giving someone a drug that could, due specifically to the drugs action, endanger the health and well-being of others in society. SSRIs have been accused of this in the past due to such things as association with school shootings and violent criminal acts. Even if a drug has a massive benefit, with such great risks should it be completely suppressed? Should the drug be allowed to circulate but only under intense supervision such that the negative effects could be negated? Could such purported violence be curbed? Where do you draw the line with regard to negative side effects? If it simply makes people verbally aggressive, would it be an infringment upon their rights to refuse them its other benefits? What if it cures the dementia but makes them not want to integrate into society or work at all? Would you let the individual decide how much a drug alters their personality by simply drawing the line at risk of violence toward others? Should the individual, medical establishment, or government have the last say in the usage of such a drug or similar drugs that lie across the spectrum of possessing side effects? I'd argue that unless a drug has a proven risk of making an individual significantly more of a direct risk to society or themselves (direct and significant here indicating interpersonal violence or suicidal tendencies), then the individual should ultimately have the decision of whether to use the drug. A possible counter-example to this argument would be: what about heroin addicts? Can a caveat be defined where disallow blatantly self-destructive tendencies without infringing upon individual rights? This seems to tap into existing drug debates involving the DEA/FDA with regard to the use of such recreational drugs as marijuana. More on these ideas later.... (in subsequent posts)
The latter two examples bring up the idea that was is natural is good and what is unnatural is necessarily bad. Much debate against emerging technologies has revolved around the technologies being "unnatural" and that their use is therefore unethical. Possibly some of the most "unnatural" side effects of drugs could be an abolishment of sexual drive or flattening of emotions, two purported side effects of SSRIs. Personally, I see these concerns as asinine knee-jerk reactions, but they seem deep seated in the contemporary status quo. Traditional counter-responses to the "unnatural is bad" mentality include the fact that pacemakers, much of contemporary medicine, antibiotics, contraception, are all unnatural. Any form of technology is likewise as unnatural from telephones to calculators, from preachers via tv to orbital satellites. What cosmetic pharmacology brings to the table as new in this regard revolves around the fact that it could much more blatantly alter who we are. I believe that the modulation of the substrate of cognition and the direct alteration of personality coming into the purvey of scientific analysis constitutes a significant paradigm shift.
How should all these concerns guide drug development and evaluation of purpoted cosmetic pharmaceutics?
Apologies for the stream of consciousness writing style, trying to get as many ideas on the table as possible for greater cohesion on this site later on.... More soon.
posted by chris at
1:15 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home