The use of psychopharmaceuticals to enhance human mental functioning such as cognition and mood has raised a debate on questions regarding identity and authenticity. While some hold that psychopharmaceutical substances can help users to ‘become who they really are’ and thus strengthen their identity and authenticity, others believe that the substances will lead to inauthenticity, normalization, and socially-enforced adaptation of behaviour and personality. In light of this debate, we studied how persons who actually have experience with the use of (...) psychopharmaceutical medication would view their ‘self’ or their authentic personal identity in relation to the use of medication. We have interviewed a number of adults diagnosed with ADHD and discussed their experiences with medication use in relation to their conceptions of self and identity. In the first part of this paper we illustrate that the concepts of identity and authenticity play an important and sometimes problematic role in experiences of ADHD adults. This shows that the question about identity and psychopharmacology is not merely an ‘academic’ issue, but one that influences everyday lives of real people. In order to answer the question whether psychopharmaceuticals threaten personal identity and authenticity, more than empirical research is needed. We also need to analyse the concepts of personal identity, authenticity and self: what do we mean when we are using statements as ‘a way of living that is uniquely our own’, ‘our true self’, or ‘who we really are’? In the second part of this paper we discuss two important philosophical views on personal identity, authenticity and self: the self-control view as elaborated by Frankfurt, and the self-expression view as proposed by Schechtman. We compare these with the experiences of our respondents to see which view can help us to understand the diverse and often conflicting experiences that people have with medication for ADHD. This will contribute to a better understanding of whether and in which cases personal identity and authenticity are threatened by psychopharmacology. (shrink)

Christians are not immune to psychological and psychiatric illness. Yet, Christians should also be careful not to permit popular cultural trends to shape the way that they think about the use of psychiatric treatment with medication. In this essay, I suggest that the tendencies for default usage of psychiatric medication can be problematic for Christians in contemporary culture where a technological imaginary exists. Modern scientific studies of psychiatric medication are partly constructive of how we imagine ourselves. The typical justification for (...) the usage of technology in contemporary culture is the theme of cocreation with God, where Christians see any usage of technology as equivalent to our participating in God’s ongoing creative activity. I challenge these ideas in the foregoing paper, noting that the modern technological imaginary that animates modern psychiatry is as constricting as it is enabling. I conclude with a different take on what it might mean for Christians to be cocreators with God. (shrink)

Different kinds of medical technologies and biotechnologies have all been developed for “therapeutic purposes,” but the possible uses of these technologies are not restricted to therapy. These possibilities give rise to a number of questions. This chapter discusses whether mood enhancement is a legitimate goal of medicine when medical resources are limited and the medical enterprise is publicly funded. It focusses on the case of mood enhancement through so‐called cosmetic psychopharmaceuticals. It suggests that we should give absolute priority to (...) those who suffer most; we should give equal weight to all improvements in well‐being, regardless of where on the scale they occur; the better a person feels, the less is the value of a certain improvement; once a certain level of subjective well‐being is achieved, further improvement is worth nothing from a medical perspective, and an improvement beyond normal mood still has value, but it is worth less. (shrink)

The use of psychopharmaceuticals to enhance human mental functioning such as cognition and mood has raised a debate on questions regarding identity and authenticity. While some hold that psychopharmaceutical substances can help users to ‘become who they really are’ and thus strengthen their identity and authenticity, others believe that the substances will lead to inauthenticity, normalization, and socially-enforced adaptation of behaviour and personality. In light of this debate, we studied how persons who actually have experience with the use of (...) psychopharmaceutical medication would view their ‘self’ or their authentic personal identity in relation to the use of medication. We have interviewed a number of adults diagnosed with ADHD and discussed their experiences with medication use in relation to their conceptions of self and identity. In the first part of this paper we illustrate that the concepts of identity and authenticity play an important and sometimes problematic role in experiences of ADHD adults. This shows that the question about identity and psychopharmacology is not merely an ‘academic’ issue, but one that influences everyday lives of real people. In order to answer the question whether psychopharmaceuticals threaten personal identity and authenticity, more than empirical research is needed. We also need to analyse the concepts of personal identity, authenticity and self: what do we mean when we are using statements as ‘a way of living that is uniquely our own’, ‘our true self’, or ‘who we really are’? In the second part of this paper we discuss two important philosophical views on personal identity, authenticity and self: the self-control view as elaborated by Frankfurt, and the self-expression view as proposed by Schechtman. We compare these with the experiences of our respondents to see which view can help us to understand the diverse and often conflicting experiences that people have with medication for ADHD. This will contribute to a better understanding of whether and in which cases personal identity and authenticity are threatened by psychopharmacology. (shrink)

Some philosophers have criticized the use of psychopharmaceuticals on the grounds that even if these drugs enhance the person using them, they threaten their authenticity. Others have replied by pointing out that the conception of authenticity upon which this argument rests is contestable; on a rival conception, psychopharmaceuticals might be used to enhance our authenticity. Since, however, it is difficult to decide between these competing conceptions of authenticity, the debate seems to end in a stalemate. I suggest that (...) we need not resolve this debate to end the stalemate. New technologies which alter the self can be understood within the framework of the first conception of authenticity, I suggest, not as threatening the authentic self, but rather as bringing the outward appearance of the self into line with its deepest essence. Since psychopharmaceutical use can plausibly be understood on this model, it can be seen as enhancing our authenticity on either conception. (shrink)

The extended mind thesis is the claim that mental states extend beyond the skulls of the agents whose states they are. This seemingly obscure and bizarre claim has far-reaching implications for neuroethics, I argue. In the first half of this article, I sketch the extended mind thesis and defend it against criticisms. In the second half, I turn to its neuroethical implications. I argue that the extended mind thesis entails the falsity of the claim that interventions into the brain are (...) especially problematic just because they are internal interventions, but that many objections to such interventions rely, at least in part, on this claim. Further, I argue that the thesis alters the focus of neuroethics, away from the question of whether we ought to allow interventions into the mind, and toward the question of which interventions we ought to allow and under what conditions. The extended mind thesis dramatically expands the scope of neuroethics: because interventions into the environment of agents can count as interventions into their minds, decisions concerning such interventions become questions for neuroethics. (shrink)

This paper explores and develops a theological perspective on taking and receiving medication. It argues that the task of prescribing and administering psychopharmaceutical drugs is a thoroughly theological enterprise and should be looked at and practiced accordingly. The paper presents a theological anthropology that opens up space for rethinking the role of medication not only in relation to therapeutic intervention, but in relation to the chief end of human beings: to glorify God and live with God forever. Drawing on theology (...) and the narratives of people living with mental health challenges, the paper seeks to facilitate a movement from neurons to souls: a movement that realigns the goals of prescribing and opens up space to rethink the nature of “symptoms” and the ultimate intentions of the psychopharmacological enterprise. (shrink)

The possibility of moral bioenhancement, and the alleged need for it, have been widely discussed both in ethics journals and the media since this type of enhancement was first proposed in the Journal of Medical Ethics in 2008. Most prominently, Ingmar Persson and Julian Savulescu have argued that humans in their current condition are simply not good enough to deal effectively with the global problems we face today and that, if we want to have any hope of saving the world (...) from “ultimate harm,” we need to find ways to morally enhance people, using psychopharmaceuticals, neurostimulation, gene editing, or whatever other biological method we can think of that might do the trick. Persson and Savulescu's 2012 book on the subject, Unfit for the Future: The Need for Moral Enhancement, has very much determined the direction of the debate. However, what remains contentious is the question of whether the kind of enhancement that Persson and Savulescu envisage is really desirable and actually feasible. Earlier in 2016, two books on moral bioenhancement were published, namely John Harris's How to Be Good: The Possibility of Moral Enhancement and Harris Wiseman's The Myth of the Moral Brain: The Limits of Moral Enhancement. Harris's book focuses on the desirability of moral bioenhancement, and Wiseman's primarily on its feasibility. Both reject Persson and Savulescu's proposal and approach, but for very different reasons. (shrink)

This paper provides a brief visual history of the ways women patients, and specifically women patients whose marital status is identified in conjunction with their illness, have been constructed as abnormal in the images of advertisements designed to promote psychotropic medications to an audience of psychiatrists. The advertisements I discuss come from the two largest circulation American psychiatric journals, The American Journal of Psychiatry and Archives of General Psychiatry, between the years 1964 and 2001. I use the ads to focus (...) on two concomitant narratives. On one hand, I show how the advertisements situate the rise of wonder drugs in the context of an era described as the golden age of psychopharmacology, during which time drug treatments helped revolutionize the diagnosis and treatment of anxiety, depression, and other outpatient mental illnesses in the United States. On the other hand, the advertisements also illustrate the ways in which these new scientific treatments could not function free of the culture in which they were given meaning. In the space between drug and wonder drug, or between medication and metaphor, the images thus hint at the ways psychotropic treatments became imbricated with the same gendered assumptions at play in an American popular culture intimately concerned with connecting normal and heteronormal when it came to defining the role of women in civilization. (shrink)

Use of medication for treatment of ADHD (or its historical precursors) has been debated for more than forty years. Reasons for the ongoing differences of opinion are analyzed by exploring some of the arguments for and against considering ADHD a mental disorder. Relative to two important DSM criteria — that a mental disorder causes some sort of harm to the individual and that a mental disorder is the manifestation of a dysfunction in the individual — ADHD’s classification as a mental (...) disorder is found to be contentiously value-laden. The disagreements spill over to reasoning regarding appropriate management, because justification for a drug prescription is in part predicated on the idea that the drugs manage mental disorders. These debates do not appear to be nearing resolution, so individuals offering advice, or trying to decide whether ADHD drugs are appropriate for themselves or their children, may find it helpful to compare the values underlying various perspectives with their own. (shrink)